Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of advance tax. The original assessment order showed a higher income than the returned income. The grounds of appeal included issues related to unexplained investment, deemed income from property registration, and denial of deduction under Section 80C.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits, especially considering the original return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 148. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax without adjudicating the grounds on merits? Whether the additions and disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are sustainable?
Sections Cited
147, 148, 250(6), 69, 56(2)(vii), 50C, 80C, 249(4)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 28/12/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2017-18.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “GROUND : 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing and disposing the each grounds of appeal on the merits of the case as mandated u/s. 250(6) in spite of the facts that there is no defect in filing of appeal. The Appellant therefore prays that the order passed us/. 250 devoid of merits be set aside for fresh adjudication and the appellant's submission ground wise may be considered.
GROUND : 2 U/S. 69 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- as unexplained investment in spite of the explanations offered and documentary evidences produced before him. The Appellant therefore prays that the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s. 69 as unexplained investment being baseless, bad-in-law, illegal, unwarranted and hence be deleted.
GROUND : 3 Section 56(2)(vii) Deemed income being difference between agreement value and the stamp duty valuation adopted.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,10,500/- as income from other sources being the difference between agreement value and the stamp duty valuation adopted u/s. 50C in spite of the facts that the property was booked earlier and registration of the agreement was made later. The Appellant therefore prays that the addition of Rs. 14,10,500/- under the head income from other sources being baseless, bad-in-law, illegal, unwarranted and hence be deleted.
GROUND : 4 Deduction u/s. 80C No deduction granted for stamp duty and registration charges paid on the purchase of residential flat.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi erred in confirming the dis-allowance of the deduction u/s. 80C for the stamp duty paid on the purchase of residential flat to the extent of Rs 1,50,000/- as income from other sources being the difference between agreement value and the stamp duty valuation adopted in spite of the facts that the property was booked earlier and registration of the agreement was made later. The Appellant therefore prays that the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- be granted. GROUND : 5 General The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the grounds above at the time of hearing.”