Case Law Details
ITO Vs Pramod A. Thakur (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act sustainable as assessee failed to prove that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination.
Facts- The Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.6,54,61,100/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 21.12.2017.
Conclusion- Held that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) is attracted only where any immovable property is received by the assessee, who is an individual or a HUF, without any consideration.
Held that learned counsel could not pin-point even a single stipulation in this clinching agreement that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination. Further, the assessee failed to lead us to the clinching material inter alia indicating any arrangement between his father and developer wherein the former had parted with the land for getting developed area in lieu of consideration; which in turn, has been passed on to him as a gift from the father and covered under forgoing exemption clause. We thus conclude that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned addition u/s. 56 (2)(vii)(b) of the act and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the same.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
