9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the appeal by the assessee are as under: "1.1 The order passed by U/s. 250 passed on 17.09.2024 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)" upholding the addition of Rs. 11,61,850/- made by A. O. u/s 56(2)(x)(b) is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,61,850 /- made by A. O. u/s 56 (2)(x)(b). 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the ld. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 11,61,850/- made by A.O. u/s 56(2)(x)(b). 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see pointed out that the AO, therefore, accepted the DVO's valuation of the fair market value of the land in the hands of one of the co-owners, as the value to be considered for determining the addition to be made u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the stamp duty value of the land of Rs. 3.32 Crores was substituted by the fair market value determined by the DVO of Rs. 2.25 Crores and the difference by way of fair market value and the actual consideration paid amounting to Rs. 24,46,000/-, to the extent relating to the assessee's share being 47.50% amounting to Rs. 11,61,850/- was added in the hands of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 4. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that Ld. CIT(A) had confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as purchased. Further in the light of the fact that the DVO has found the FMV of the land to be far less than its stamp duty value being Rs. 2.23 crores as opposed to its stamp duty value of Rs. 3,32 crores, there is no case with the Revenue for considering the stamp duty value of the land for ITA No. 179/Ahd/ 2022 computing the addition to be made to the income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. At the most, the FMV could be taken for the purpose of determining the excess between the FMV and the purchase consideration, but since the difference is only to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs, which is approximately 10% of the purchase consideration of the property of Rs. 2.01 crores, it is not a material difference. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition ignoring the plea of the assessee that the addition was not sustainable since the ITAT had deleted identical addition made in the hands of the 3rd co-owner of the impugned land itself. We have gone through the order of the ITAT in the case of Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati (supra) and we have noted that the ITAT had deleted the addition noting that the difference between fair market value and the purchase consideration is approximately 10% of the purchase consideration of the property which is not a material difference. The relevant finding of ITAT are at para nos. 20 to 21 of its order as under: "20. In view of the above facts, since on a val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
