TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is a buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) and Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are also not applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP and the assessee is a LLP. Section 56(2)(x) which may be applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP was introduced with effect from A.Y. 2018-19 while the present case is with regard to A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, in the absence of any statutory presumption the AO was under obligation to establish by definite evidence that purchaser had made more payment then stated in sale deed. Circumstances of distress sale are on record and there was no attempt of AO to discredit the same. CIT(A) has rightly taken all these aspects into consideration while allowing the relief of deletion and no interference is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the partnership as third partner vide agreement dated 10.10.2014. The assessing Officer passed the assessment order at an income of Rs.7,84,08,880/- after adding a sum of Rs.7,84,00,000/- to the income of the assessee firm being the difference between the purchase price of the property purchased by the assessee firm during the year(Rs.l2,34,00,000-Rs.4,50,00,000) on the basis of value adopted by the Registrar of Documents for stamp duty purpose over the actual amount paid by the assessee firm for purchase of property. The assessee firm made investment by purchase of property in N- 94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi for Rs.4,50,00,000/- during the year, which was duly reflected in the sale deed submitted before the Assessing Officer and duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause that there is an understatement of the consideration. It is further laid down that to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the assessee, would be to cast and almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative . Further, it is also noted that Hon ble Madras High Court in CGT v. R. Damodaran (2001) 247 ITR 698 held that Stamp Valuation Authorities have their own method of evaluating the property. Merely because for the purpose of stamp duty, property is valued at higher cost, it cannot be said that assessee has made more payment than what is stated in the sale deed. Further, Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO (1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.) it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty in question is higher than the sale consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- mentioned in the sale deed. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts of the case mentioned by the AO in the assessment order that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish concrete evidence with regard to the lesser value of the property in question but the assessee has failed to furnish any justification with concrete evidence. The assessee has simply stated that there is a family dispute between the owners. iv. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08. 7. Now giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record, it can be observed that the assessee is purchaser of the property. Ld. AO had show caused assessee as to why fair market value of the property should not be considered contrary to property valued in valuation report without citing section under which such addition can be made. Not only this when assessee in its response referred to Section 56(2)(vii) the Ld. AO has even observed that the assessee has referred to said section suo moto whereas no notice / show cause / summons/ non-sheets has any reference of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. At page no. 67 paragraph (B) the Ld. AO observed the assessee firm has irrelevantly referred the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld AO was taking benefit of any presumption under law that any amount was paid from undisclosed source to the seller by purchaser then certainly that relevant section should have been mentioned in the show cause itself. 8.1 Then relevant Section 50C cannot be invoked as the said section is applicable in the case of seller of the property only while the appellant is a buyer. Section 56(2)(vii)(a) and Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are also not applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP and the assessee is a LLP. The Section 56(2)(x) which may be applicable in case of partnership firm or LLP was introduced with effect from A.Y. 2018-19 while the present case is with regard to A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, in the absence of any statutory presum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
