9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Mr.Y.Sridhar, CA Respondent by : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ORDER PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by different assessees are directed against separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, all dated 16.02.2021 and pertains to assessment year 2017- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Vanigar Street, Kanchipuram, for a consideration of Rs.31,80,000/- vide Document No.3014/2016 dated 07.06.2016. The guideline value of the property was fixed at Rs.84,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO referred the valuation of property to Valuation Cell of the Income Tax Department and the DVO has determined value of property at Rs.74,99,648/-. The AO assessed sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s explained the reasons for difference in guideline value and thus, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have made addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that the law is very clear in as much as if there is a difference between guideline value of the property and consideration paid for purchase of said prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered view that difference between the DVO value of Rs.74,99,648/- and consideration paid for purchase of property at Rs.31,80,000/-, should be assessed as income of the purchasers in terms of s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO after considering relevant facts has rightly made addition towards differential consideration u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
