IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER (Assessment Year : 2014–15)

Nitin Narayan Kadamdhad

116–B, Shiv Nagar, Nandanvan ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AHBPK8374R v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(5), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Ritesh Mehta Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 10/02/2025 Date of Order – 05/03/2025

O R D E R

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated

18/09/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. That the learned A. O has wrongly applied the provision of Sec.

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which was inserted wef 1st April 2014 prospectively.

2. That the learned A. O has hurriedly made the addition without giving any reasonable opportunity to the assessee for proving the market value.

3. That the learned A. O has not been fair in getting the opinion form the valuation officer regarding the market value of the said property.

4. That the learned A. O has failed to prove that an additional amount over and above the agreement value has been paid by the appellant to the seller thereby causing any loss to the revenue.

5. That the learned A. O has failed to give benefit of the 1st provision of Sec.

56(2)(vii) to the appellant.

6. That the learned A. O has failed to acknowledge the fact that the property was situated in a lower-class area and hence fetched low price.

7. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised from time to time in course of appellate proceedings.

PRAYER: To grant the stay against the demand and recovery action to be taken by the jurisdictional assessing officer as the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and is confident of getting justice.”

3. At the outset, I need to mention here that the assessee has filed an application for grant of stay against the demand raised by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014–15 for ` 2,98,040. The said stay application is hereby rejected, as I am proceeding to dispose off the corresponding appeal filed by the assessee on merits.

4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is an Individual and is engaged in the business of civil contractor involved in the construction of civil structures and building. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ` 60,00,000 from M/s. Shri Gurukrupa Builders and Developers, vide sale agreement dated 01/06/2012, and received possession on the same day by executing the documents which were registered on 27/06/2013. The market value as per stamp duty reckoner of the said property was ` 69,76,000, on the date of registration i.e., on 27/06/2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the said property was purchased by the assessee during the financial year 2012–13 relevant to the assessment year 2013–14 vide agreement dated 01/06/2012 and the possession was taken on the very same date while making part payments of the consideration on various dated during the financial year 2012–13 relevant to the assessment year 2013–14. Out of ` 60 lakh consideration value, the assessee paid ` 27 lakh by account payee cheque during the financial year 2012–13 relevant to the assessment year 2013–14. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee could not prove the land is in stock–in–trade. He further observed that the assessee had paid stamp duty of ` 4,55,000, on the value adopted for stamp duty purpose. Hence, the difference of purchase consideration of ` 60,00,000 and the market value of ` 69,76,000, aggrega– ting to ` 9,76,000 was proposed to be treated as “Income From Other Sources” by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Consequent upon issuance of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before th