Law:

Section:

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment - Assessment year 1984-85 - Assessee purchased a house property - According to sale deed, market value of said property for purpose of stamp duty was shown at Rs. 2,07,500 but actual consideration was stated to be Rs. 1,50,000 ITO noticing extent of built-up area as also rent and that assessee had not produced any documentary evidence in support of her claim that actual consideration of house in question was Rs. 1,50,000, opined that assessee had suppressed true sale consideration and, accordingly, made addition of difference between Rs. 2,07,500 and Rs. 1,50,000 to assessee's income - Record showed that ITO had omitted to notice that premises in question were under tenancy of assessee's mother and assessee's family was occupying it - Whether matter required a fresh consideration - Held, yes FACTS The assessee purchased a house property. According to the sale deed, the market value of the said property for the purpose of stamp duty was shown at Rs. 2,07,500 but the actual consideration was stated to be Rs. 1,50,000. The ITO noticing the extent of the built-up area as also the rent and that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence to support his case that the actual sale consideration of the house in dispute was Rs. 1,50,000, opined that the assessee had suppressed the true sale consideration and, accordingly, made addition of the difference between Rs. 2,07,500 and Rs. 1,50,000 to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO. On revision under section 264, the Commissioner also upheld the order of the ITO. On writ: HELD One cannot recognise any rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty is the actual consideration passing between the parties to a sale. The actual consideration may be more or may be less. What is the actual consideration that passed between the parties is a question of fact to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the assessee brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the portion purchased by him was under the tenancy of his mother and…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492