Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 1413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... declaring total income at "Rs. Nil" on dated 31.10.2015, was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, on the reason/information flagged by Directorate of System on INSIGHT PORTAL uploaded by DDIT (Inv.)-(4)(1), Thane to the effects that the Assessee had purchased an immovable property of Rs. 22,06,000/-. 2.1 On analysis of the information, it was seen that the Assessee had purchased the shop in Janki Heights Bhayandar for a consideration of Rs. 8,09,600/-, whereas market value of the same was Rs. 22,06,000/- and therefore the AO construed that the Assessee has not offered the difference of consideration as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and consequently issued the notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act to the Assessee who in respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the details filed, claimed that agreement value of the property was Rs. 8,09,600/- whereas stamp duty value was Rs. 22,06,000/- and therefore the Assessee has duly offered the amount of Rs. 13,96,400/- being difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value, for the taxation as per the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, by filing his return of income on dated 10.08.2021 in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. The AO on verifying the return of income filed in response to section 148 of the Act, though accepted the said claim of the Assessee, however made the addition of Rs. 8,09,600/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained source of income and taxed as per the provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 3.1 The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant has stated that the amount was paid to the builder i.e M/s. S V Developers during the FY 2006-07 through M/s. Sonam Builders in which the appellant was partner having 40% share.) Further, the appellant stated that an agreement for sale cum development executed between J.B. Construction with SV Developers and M/s. Sonam Builders on 18.05.2010. As per the agreement the incomplete building was to be demolished and reconstruct a multi-storeyed building by loading extra FSI by way of TDR at the cost of J B Construction.) Further, the appellant stated that out of the 46 shops the appellant had sold 45 shops which were duly accounted for in the respective & retaining only one shop with the appellant at a prorate cost of Rs. 8,09,600/-) In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the AO is confirmed in the absence of any documentary evidence. Accordingly, the ground no.2 is dismissed. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court. The Assessee controverted the findings of the authorities below, whereas the Ld. D.R. supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee had purchased the property under consideration of Rs. 8,09,600/- and before the authorities below has demonstrated that he is a 40% partner in M/s. Sonam Builders, who had paid the amount of Rs. 8,11,600/- through four cheques in 2006, as detailed below: PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF SHOP NO.1 Sr. No. Particulars Cheque No. Date Amount 1 S.V. DE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0/- Rs. 2700/- and Rs. 10,000/- have been claimed u/s 80C of the Act as life insurance premium and u/s 80G of the Act and u/s 80TTA of the Act respectively . 8. This Court observe that originally the Assessee had claimed the deduction under chapter VIA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 71,036/- only mainly on the reason that the total income as per original return was Rs. 71,036/- itself. The AO made the addition under consideration on the reason that there is difference in the claim of the Assessee in original and new return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and no proof regarding the same was submitted, whereas the Assessee has claimed that he has duly submitted the relevant details as submitted before the Tribunal. The Assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates