PANCHALI SHYAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUWAHATI

That the impugned order is wholly a misconceived and misconstrued one and suffer from misapplication of mind and/or violation of the principles of natural justice and bad in law.

That the CIT(A) NAFC erred to confirm the impugned Assessment Order of Faceless Assessment Unit for making an addition of Rs. 2,90,750/- U/s. 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing the sum of Rs. 1,28,239/- U/s. 80C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Panchali Shyam.

That the Faceless Assessment Unit is palpably wrong and unjust to make the addition/s which is confirmed by CIT(A) NAFC without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity. i) Rs. 290750/- U/s. 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ii) Rs. 128239/- partially disallowed U/s. 80C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. That the CIT(A) NAFC Order has grossly undermined the facts of the case. As a matter of fact, the alleged additions of Rs. 4,18,989/- is barred by limitation and is contrary to the provisions of law.

That the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify and/or add to any of the submission made hereinabove and adduce evidence/s in support being necessary.”

1 The assessee has subsequently filed the revised grounds of appeal which are as under:

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was flagged for non-filing of the return of income for AY 2015-16 despite the Revenue possessing information regarding the transfer of capital assets, Panchali Shyam. salary receipts, and the purchase of an immovable property. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022, in response to which the assessee filed the return of income on 16.05.2022 declaring total income of ₹5,99,750/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for declared consideration of ₹28,00,000/-, whereas the value for the purpose of stamp duty adopted by the stamp valuation authority was ₹30,90,750/- . As the assessee failed to reply to the show cause notice regarding this discrepancy, the Ld. AO treated the difference of ₹2,90,750/- as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. Furthermore, out of the total deduction of ₹1,50,000/- claimed u/s 80C of the Act, the Ld. AO allowed only a sum of ₹21,761/- based on the submitted documentary evidence, thereby disallowing the unsupported excess claim of ₹1,28,239/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 07.03.2023 and assessed the total income at ₹10,18,740/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had failed to provide any valid explanation to justify the discrepancy between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the immovable property, thereby validating the addition of ₹2,90,750/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Similarly, concerning the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that no supporting documentary evidence was submitted for the disallowed sum of ₹1,28,239/-, and held that the Ld. AO correctly restricted the allowable deduction to ₹21,761/-.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was enquired from the Ld. AR as to why the addition should not be made as the assessee had responded before the Ld. AO that she had purchased an immovable property valued at ₹30 Lakh at Garia, Kolkata, West Bengal and ₹90,750/- was incurred for Stamp Duty and Registration of property by taking a loan amounting to ₹22,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Guwahati. The Ld. AR stated that the addition was not liable to be made as the property was purchased for ₹30 Lakh + (plus) other charges and not for ₹28 lakhs as was reported to the Ld. AO and requested that as there is no difference, no addition is liable to be made and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO for verification of this fact as proper reply could not be furnished earlier. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but did not oppose the request of the assessee to remand the matter before the Ld. AO.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Apparently, the information was received from the sub-