TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of land purchased by the assessee along with his brother as co-owners, once the entire transactions is to be taken as one transaction then the difference between the declared value by the assessee and that is determined by the DVO, which is less than 5% only. Therefore taking into account, the totality of the transactions made by the assessee, we find that the invocation of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) does not arise in this case. Therefore we direct to delete the entire addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Decided in favour assessee. - ITA No. 253/Rjt/2019 And ITA No. 255/Rjt/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2023 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue is Rs. 2,59,59,184/- and difference as per the jantri value is 11,84,184/- which represents 4.56% of the total consideration. The assessee further submitted valuation is a matter of estimation, where some degree of difference is bound to occur. However the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority and the actual amount paid by the assessee is less than 10% which is liable to be ignored. 2.3. The assessee further relied upon Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 530, that no addition can be made on this count. The assessee also relied upon Pune Bench Tribunal decision in the case of Rahul Construction Vs. DCIT wherein the difference between the figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 25,35,000/- 14.06.2013 4. R. S No. 177/2. Naghedi, Jamnagar. Rs. 30,40,000/- Rs. 30,40,000/- 14.06.2013 5. R. S No. 177/3. Naghedi, Jamnagar. Rs. 30,40,000/- Rs. 30,40,000/- 14.06.2013 6. R. S No. 177/4. Naghedi, Jamnagar. Rs. 30,40,000/- Rs. 30,40,000/- 14.06.2013 7. R. S No. 177/5. Naghedi, Jamnagar. Rs. 30,40,000/- Rs. 32,88,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as declared by the assessee in respect of above two properties is coming to Rs. 5,21,500/-(i.e. Rs. 2,48,000/- + Rs. 2,73,500/-) which is more than 5% of the value of Rs. 60,80,000/- of such properties as declared by the appellant. In view of this the AO is directed to adopt the value of the property bearing RS. No. 177/6 at Rs. 32,88,000/- and value of the property bearing R S No. 177/7 at Rs. 33,13,500/- as determined by departmental valuation officer for making the addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. This is in view of the fact, the addition in the case of assessee u/s. 56(2)(vii) will be Rs. 5,21,500/- and not Rs. 11,53,674/- as made by the AO. Again the decision of honorable ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chandra Prakash Junjunvala vs. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of hearing. 5. Ld. Counsel Mr. Mehul Ranpura appearing for the assessee submitted before us. The assessee purchased the agricultural land in different survey numbers jointly with his brother Anil B. Varotaria. Though this is a whole piece of agricultural land and for the sake of administrative convenience total 9 sale deeds were registered. When a big piece of land is purchased, some difference in valuation used occur based on the location of the land, extent of the land and various other market situations. If all the nine pieces of land is considered and the estimated value determined by the District Valuation Officer is considered, then the difference will be less than 5% of the total value namely Rs. 5,21,500/-. Therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
