VIJAY RAJARAM MANE,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 52/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2025AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing rival submissions and perusing the material on record, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a denovo assessment. This decision was made in the interest of justice, to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate his claim of joint ownership and to address the valuation methodology. The assessee is directed to make the requisite compliance before the AO. The Tribunal did not make specific findings on the merits of the additions or the initiation of penalty and interest proceedings, as the case was remanded for fresh assessment. The principle that emerges is that an assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present their case, especially concerning claims of co-ownership and property valuation, before additions are confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijay Rajaram Mane, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 07.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee's return declared an income of Rs.9,30,800/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny concerning two immovable property transactions where the purchase consideration was below stamp duty valuations. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by adding the difference of Rs.48,65,438/- between stamp duty valuations and purchase considerations under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee did not respond to a show cause notice. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting the failure to substantiate a claim of joint ownership for one property.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.35,82,270/- under Section 56(2)(x) as 100% of the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration is correct, or if it should be considered as 50% share due to co-ownership with the assessee's father. 2. Whether the addition of Rs.12,83,168/- under Section 56(2)(x) for land in a Zopadpatti area developed under an SRA Scheme, representing the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration, is correct. 3. Whether penalty proceedings under Section 270A were rightly initiated. 4. Whether interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was correctly charged. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs.35,82,270/- should be considered as 50% of the difference, as the property was co-owned with his father. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the claim of joint ownership and the valuation methodology without referring to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, other than the fact that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 30.09.2025

Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punamiya Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 07.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 22018-19

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as follows:

1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 35,82,270/- considering it as 100% share of the assesse instead of considering it as 50% share which is co-owned with his father u/s 56(2)(x) treating the same as difference between A.Y. 2018-19 the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration and added the same to the income of the assesse.

2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 12,83,168/- for the land is Zopadpattis area developed under Slum Redevelopment Scheme SRA Scheme of the Municipal Corporation u/s 56(2)(x) treating the same as difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration and added the same to the income of the assesse..

3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the income tax act.

4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A,234B and 234C of the act.

5.

The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal

.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 9,30,800/- for A.Y. 2018-19. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the transactions relating to the two immovable property wherein the assessee had purchased the properties at consideration below the stamp duty valuations.

As the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice on this issue, the assessment was completed vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B dated 26.04.2021 wherein the difference of Rs. 48,65,438/- between the stamp duty valuations and purchase considerations was added u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

Vide order dated 07.11.2024, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after observing that the assessee did not substantiate the claim of joint ownership with his son in respect of one of the properties.

Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) disregarding the assessee’s contention of A.Y. 2018-19 joint ownership as well as the methodology of valuation without making reference to the DVO.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. After considering the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. AO to make denovo assessment after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.09.2025

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →