Assessee purchased the property at an agreed consideration of Rs. 16,80,00,000, which has been valued by the DVO at Rs. 19,38,86,000. The AO invoked the provision of S. 56(2) (x)(b)(B). Order of AO is affirmed by the CIT(A ). On appeal the Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Act that before invoking the provisions of s. 56(2), the AO or the CIT(A) should prove with evidence that there is a transaction of on-money and then only addition can be made. It is an anti-avoidance provision. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. (AY. 2018-19)
West End Investment & Finance Consultancy Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 229 TTJ 738 / 236 DTR 313 / 38 NYPTTJ 245/ 160 taxmann.com 679 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Difference between purchase consideration and valuation made by DVO-An anti-avoidance provision-No infirmity in valuation report-There is no provision in the Act that before invoking the provisions of s. 56(2), the AO or the CIT(A) should prove with evidence that there is a transaction of on-money and then only addition can be made-Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [S.56(2)(x)(b)]