9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmedabad ["CIT(A)" in short], all dated 14.06.2017, passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. Since the appeals are connected with each other and common issues are involved, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. All the four appeals are identical; therefore, firstly we are taking up the appeal being ITA No. 2101/Ahd/2017. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:- "1. Both the Ld. A. O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,63,776/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same even though it was brought to their notice that the agreement for purchase of property in question was actually entered in to with the seller o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Stamp Duty Authority to the appellant when it was asked to him vide reply dated 15/12/2016 that the assessee could rebut the matter only on receipt of the stamp duty valuation. Had the A.O. provided the same, the appellant would have objected u/s 50C (2) of the Act, to refer the matter to the valuation officer if not agreed with the stamp duty -valuation. (c) The Ld. A.O. has erred in making such addition which is based on deeming provisions of the law where payments for purchase of property over and above the documents value (registration amount) has not been proved/established by the A.O. (d) The Ld. A.O. has erred in making the addition of Rs. 2,18,368/- for the year under consideration in the hands of the assessee without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Sub-Registrar. The assessee filed reply before the Assessing Officer and after taking cognizance, the Assessing Officer held that the agreement dated 23.09.2010 in respect of sale of land bearing Survey No. 139 to 142 was executed between M/s. Durga Recol Industries Pvt. Ltd., Shri Natwarlal Prabhudas Patel and five others including assessee. As per the agreement for sale, the description of the property does not include Survey No. 140/1 and 140/3 as the same was executed between Sanjay Singh Chandrikapratap Singh and Shri Natwarlal Prabhudas Patel and five others. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made addition of Rs.1,63,776/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 140/1, 140/2 and 140/3 was not established by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A). The learned DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 9. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the Banakhat dated 10.06.2010, Re-conveyance Deed and Declaration dated 23.06.2010, Cancellation Deed dated 23.06.2010 and Reconveyance Deed registered on 23.08.2010 - all these documents are in consonance with Survey No. 139 to 142. Merely there was a difference of transaction in respect of Survey No. 140/1, 140/2 and 140/3 which has a separate banakhat in between the parties, that are M/s. Durga Ricol Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjay Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
