Assessee purchased three plots of land at lower price than determined by DVO. Commissioner (Appeals) made addition of difference amount to income of assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Assessee contended before Tribunal that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not applicable because plots were purchased for purpose of subsequent sale and, therefore, same were held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal held that as prior to this transaction of purchase of plots assessee was never engaged in trading of plots of land and he had not demonstrated that he fulfilled criteria for treating purchase of plots as stock-in-trade of his business, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were applicable. The Tribunal also held that as assessee failed to substantiate the cash payment made by party had been made to seller on his behalf. Appeal is dismissed. As regards valuation determined by the DVO, the Tribunal directed DVO to consider the impact of encroachment on land if not already considered in valuation report. (AY. 2014-15)
Ranjit Shivram Raut. v. ITO (2023) 199 ITD 98 (Mum) (Trib.)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Purchase of plots of land at lower price than determined by DVO-Not stock in trade-Provision is applicable-Payment made on cash-Failed to substantiate the cash payment-Credit cannot be given-Estimate by Valuation Officer-Encroachment-DVO is directed to consider the impact of encroachment on land if not already considered in valuation report. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b), 142A]