9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from other sources which consists of Rs. 44,562/- as interest Rs. 3,72,500/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rs. 2,07,504/- as pension income. On the basis of information available on record that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,18,566/- in the bank account during the demonetization period which was actually held in the name of Mr. Hemant Patil who expired in December, 2015, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after recording the reasons. The assessee in response to the same requested the Assessing Officer to treat the return originally filed as return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee. During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the appellant is seller of the property and the section 56(2)(x) is applicable on receiver / purchaser of the property. The appellant has submitted that the Ld. AO has erred in applying section 56(2)(x) and has interpreted it wrongly. On perusal of the submission made by the appellant, it has been the observed that deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed and as per the provision of section 56(2)(x), the difference in stamp duty and the transaction value needs to be brought to tax. From the facts and circumstances as stated above, the addition of Rs. 17,76,450/- made by the by the Ld. AO on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs. 9,58,566/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period and addition of Rs. 17,76,450/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition of Rs. 9,58,566/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account but sustained the addition of Rs. 17,76,450/- which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee since the same are applicable to the purchasers, whereas the assessee in the instant case is the seller. It is also his submission that since the Assessing Officer has not giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
