LALITRAO BHASKARRAO PATIL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(4), JALGAON

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried person. He receives salary from the office of the Medical Superintendent, ESIS Hospital, Mulund West. He filed his return of income on 22.10.2021 declaring

During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 25.11.2021 on Ruparel Realty group and its related entities. It was observed that the assessee had purchased a flat No.1504 of the project Ruparel Ariana from Shree Sukhkarta Developers Pvt Ltd on 31.03.2021 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,91,12,460/-. He noted that the value of the property as per stamp valuation authority was Rs.3,08,09,677/-. Thus, there is difference of Rs.1,16,97,217/- between the sale consideration and the market value of the property. He, therefore, confronted the same to the assessee asking him to explain as to why the same should not be treated as income from other sources. He further observed from the information uploaded that the assessee paid an amount of Rs.43 lakhs in cash on 19.12.2020 for purchasing flat No.1504 of Ruparal Ariana project from Shree Sukhkarta Developers Pvt Ltd. He, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the above. The assessee in response to the same filed a detailed submission. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the same and made addition of Rs.1,16,97,217/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x). Similarly, he made addition of Rs.43 lakhs to the total income of 3 the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer from para 3.3 and 3.4 read as under:

Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B N Bhattacharjee & others reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabra Land & Housing Ltd vide ITA Nos.1025-1027/CHD/2005 for assessment year 2002-03. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that on all the 3 occasions the assessee had filed adjournment applications before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. However, on the last occasion, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC instead of granting an adjournment, decided the appeal by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B N Bhattacharjee & others (supra) and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabra Land & Housing Ltd (supra). He submitted that the matter should have been referred to the DVO which has not been done. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that the Assessing Officer made the 2 additions since the assessee failed to substantiate the same with documentary evidence to his satisfaction. He submitted that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee did not make any submission before him. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.1,16,97,217/- being the difference between the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs.3,08,09,677/- and the amount paid as per the sale deed at Rs.1,91,12,460/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Similarly, in absence of any cogent explanation given by him, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.43 lakhs being the cash paid by the assessee on 19.12.2020 towards purchase of flat No.1504 at project Airana. We find despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee was seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was trying to collect some information for which he was seeking adjournment. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without giving further adjournment, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It is his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////