RENU KUMARI,ECC FLAT vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 19/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 September 2026AY 2018-201916 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Renu Kumari, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. The dispute arises from the purchase of an immovable property for Rs. 34,55,859/-, where the stamp duty value was Rs. 45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added the difference of Rs. 10,44,141/- to the assessee's total income under Section 56(2)(x) as income from other sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], NFAC, Delhi, upheld the AO's order. The assessee's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, was filed with a delay of 255 days, which was condoned.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) categorically noted that the assessee did not furnish the income proof of her husband regarding salary income from Tata Steel, nor did she submit the bank statement regarding the loan availed by her husband. The CIT(A) also noted that the circle rate list furnished did not prove the income source or the difference between the purchase price and stamp duty value. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order clearly indicated that the assessee had submitted copies of the sale agreement and sale deed, 26AS, and bank statements in response to notices. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence was contrary to the AO's findings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence such as bank statements and proof of income from her husband's salary and loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO had invoked Section 133(6) to call for information from the Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was contrary to the AO's observation that the assessee had furnished the necessary documents. The Tribunal did not make any specific finding on the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) or the other grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was being remanded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,44,141/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration as income from other sources, is bad in law and facts, as contended by the assessee. 2. Whether Section 56(2)(x) is applicable to the assessee, a housewife with no independent source of income, who allegedly did not make any investment in the impugned property, as argued by the assessee. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the entire consideration for the property was paid by the assessee's husband from his explained salary income and bank loan, and the assessee was included as a joint owner out of natural love and affection, as submitted by the assessee. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition solely on the ground that salary slips and loan statements of the assessee's husband were not furnished, despite Section 56(2)(x) not requiring proof of source of funds but receipt of benefit, which the assessee claims is absent, as argued by the assessee. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of the Agreement to Sale dated 14-10-2014, in contravention of the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x), even though part consideration was paid through banking channels prior to the agreement, as contended by the assessee. The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, supported the orders of the lower authorities and had nothing further to submit beyond supporting the orders passed by both the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 270A,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri Debashis Sannigrahi, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25/08/2026Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10237959 dated 19/02/2025 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-15/1073475512(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) against the order in ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051289946(1) dated 25/03/2022 passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, by the ld. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 255 days for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the facts that the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 564 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →