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

ITA 19/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 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. She purchased an immovable property for Rs. 34,55,859, while its stamp duty value was Rs. 45,00,000. The Assessing Officer (AO), NFAC, Delhi, reopened the assessment under Section 147 and added the difference of Rs. 10,44,141 to her total income under Section 56(2)(x) as income from other sources. The assessee argued she is a housewife with no independent income and her husband paid for the property from his salary and a bank loan, with her name added to the deed out of affection. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's addition, stating the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of her husband's income and loan details. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT is delayed by 255 days, which the Tribunal condoned.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee did not furnish her husband's income proof or bank statements for the loan was contrary to the AO's findings. The AO had noted that the assessee submitted copies of the sale deed, agreement of sale, 26AS, and bank statements in her replies. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had invoked Section 133(6) to call for information from the Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition based on the premise that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence, which the Tribunal found to be factually incorrect based on the AO's own findings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal did not decide 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? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether Section 56(2)(x) is applicable when the assessee is a housewife with no independent source of income and has not made any investment in the impugned property? (Question of law) 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the entire consideration was paid by the appellant's husband from his explained salary income and bank loan, and the appellant was included as a joint owner out of natural love and affection? (Question of fact) 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition solely on the ground that salary slips and loan statements of the appellant's husband were not furnished, despite Section 56(2)(x) not requiring proof of source of funds but receipt of benefit, which is absent? (Question of law) 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the adoption of 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)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable as she is a housewife with no independent income and her husband paid for the property. She claimed to be a nominal co-owner without financial contribution, and the inclusion of her name was a family arrangement. She also contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering that her husband's income and loan were explained and that Section 56(2)(x) requires receipt of benefit, not just source of funds. The assessee also argued for the adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of the Agreement to Sale. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A), stating they do not have anything further to submit other than supporting the orders passed by both revenue authorities. The Sr. DR also submitted that the source of purchase of the property was shown from the salary of the appellant's husband.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,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 →