Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) regarding additions made by the AO under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the property purchase was initiated based on an allotment letter in 2011, with the formal agreement in 2017, and stamp duty valuation should be based on the earlier date.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the submissions and documents provided by the assessee. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after evaluating all documents and providing a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's documents and arguments and in violating principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
56(2)(x), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 11.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19.
Ground No. 1, raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal filed by the assesse without providing sufficient opportunities of hearing and without appreciating the documents placed on record by the assessee.
In this regard, I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before me and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, I noticed that assessee had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) thereby challenging the additions made by AO u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. In the said appeal the assessee had made specific submissions that the entire transaction in the purchase of the flat in question is of her husband Mr. Oumeya Kale and the name of the assessee was only provided in the deed for the sake of convenience as a second owner and moreover it was also submitted that the flat in question was purchased vide letter of allotment dated 18.02.2011 and part consideration was also paid at that time. However, the formal agreement of sale was registered on 31.08.2017. As per assessee since the property was purchased vide letter of allotment and hence even if one wants to compare the stamp duty valuation, the same shall be done on the basis of valuation as on 18.02.2011 and not 31.08.2017 as applied by the revenue, and in this regard supported his arguments by following decisions.
Pr. CIT Vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, 413 ITR 248 2. Pr. CIT Vs. Vembu Vaidayanathan, 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC). 3. Poonam Ramesh Sahajawani Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2252/Mum/2019.
Qamruddin Raffiuddin Siddiqui Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2067/Mum/2021.
4. However, from the order of Ld. CIT(A), I noticed that both the assertions / arguments of the assessee were not dealt, as according to the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had not provided any supporting evidences like ITR of her husband, purchase deed of Malad flat, allotment letter, agreement, bank statement etc. Further, assessee had also not provided any information that her husband has shown the said income / capital gain in his ITR or not and the same has been offered to tax or not. Therefore in the absence of these documents, the claim of the assessee was rejected.
Whereas on the contrary, Ld. AR drawn my attention to the paper book, wherein documents in the shape of copy of Acknowledgement of return of Income, letter of allotment, copy of Agreement, receipts from JP Infra for payments made by Oumelya Kale for purchase of flat from time to time, extracts of bank payments of Mr. Oumeya Kale, Copies of covering letter, acknowledgement of return of income of Oumeya Kale and computation of income of Oumeya Kale for A.Y 2018-19 disclosing sale of Andheri Flat were filed before the revenue authorities and in this regard assessee submitted that none of those documents were considered by Ld. CIT(A) and had thus violated principles of natural justice.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after evaluating and appreciating the documents placed on record and relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits after evaluating the documents placed on record are relied upon by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to call for any other documents if so required and assessee shall also at liberty to place on record any documents as per law.
Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025.