9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds inter-alia that :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in not obtaining the requisite approval u/s 151 of the IT Act for issuing the Notice u/s 148 within 4 years from the end of Assessment year 2018-19 and therefore the entire Reassessment proceedings u / s 147 are liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 62,01,357/- being the difference between the Purchase Consideration for immovable property at Rs. 30,75,680/- as per the Purchase Agreement AND the valuation of Rs. 92,77,037/- fixed by the stamp Duty Authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty i.e. flat on 15.09.2017 for a consideration of Rs.25,80,000/- as against stamp duty valuation of Rs.92,77,037/-. The flat in question purchased by the assessee was built under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Government of Maharashtra. The case of the assessee is that he was allotted the said flat by the builders namely M/s. Bahist Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vide allotment letter dated 20.12.2014 at a consideration of Rs.25,80,000/- on making advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of banking channel and balance payment along with stamp duty and registration charges totaling Rs.30,75,680/- was paid on or before registration of the property i.e. on 16.09.2017. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee that he has purchased the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n + Rs.4,95,680/- being the stamp duty and registration charges on 16.09.2017. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has treated the difference of Rs.62,01,357/- (Rs.92,77,037/- - Rs.30,75,680/-) being the difference between sale price and stamp duty valuation and as income from other sources. 7. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended that under the proviso to section 50C of the Act where the development agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of this sub clause and as such market value as on date of buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
