OSWALD RAPHAEL MISQUITTA,VASAI ROAD vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-3(2)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH
MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Oswald Raphael Misquitta
Dreamland
House
Devdharan Wadi, Sanour
Vasai W Bassein
Thane – 401 201
Vs. ITO Int. Tax Ward –
3(2)(1), Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.AVVPM3924A
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Shah
Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
26/03/2025
Date of Pronouncement
22/05/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 05/12/2024 against final assessment order dated
24/01/2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of direction given by ld. DRP dated 05/12/2024. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the validity of reopening assessment u/s.148A and on merits had challenged the addition of Rs. 6,16,82,500/- u/s.56(2)(x).
Oswald Raphael Misquitta
The facts in brief are that assessee is a non-resident and was not filing return of income in India. Information was received from insight portal of the Income Tax Department that assessee had made various investments in the A.Y. 2019-20, however, no return of income was filed. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 was issued on 30/03/2023. Ld. AO in his order has noted that assessee has made investment in immovable property for Rs.75,00,000/- whereas, fair market value of the land as determined by the stamp valuation authorities was Rs.6,91,82,500/- and accordingly, in the draft assessment order, ld. AO proposed addition of Rs.6,16,82,500/- being difference amount chargeable to tax u/s.56(2)(x) as ‘income from other sources’. The ld. DRP has confirmed the draft order and accordingly, in the final assessment order, income has been assessed at Rs.6,16,52,500/-. 4. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. Before us it has been submitted that assessee has produced Registered Valuer’s report who had valued property at much lower than the actual sale consideration, because of location and condition and use of the land, the fair market value was much far below the stamp duty value. Another important fact which has been brought on record that earlier the person from whom assessee had purchased the property in this case, the matter was referred to the departmental Valuation Officer who had submitted his report on 29/06/2017 who has valued the same property as on Oswald Raphael Misquitta
3
30/12/2013 at Rs.22,88,790/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee had purchased the property from Mr. Santosh Vekande on 03/11/2018 who had earlier purchased same property on 30/12/2013 value of which was Rs.22,88,790/- and the Valuation Officer of the department to whom matter was referred had determined value of the property at Rs. 33,30,250/- as on date on 30/12/2013. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. AO in the case of the assessee from whom remand report was called for by the ld.DRP has clearly stated this fact. It has been further submitted that before the ld. AO, assessee has raised this specific objection that value of the land is far below the stamp value rate, the copy of the letter is placed at paper book at page 394. However, neither the ld. AO nor the ld. DRP has referred the matter to the Valuation Officer. Now, there is a DVO’s report for the same property then as per the report the fair market value has been found to of much lower price then, such huge difference cannot be added.
5. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the matter can be restored back to the file of the ld. AO to refer the matter to the DVO.
6. On perusal of the facts and material on record, it is seen that assessee had purchased two lands bearing Survey No. 52/D of area admeasuring 0-84-40 HRP; and Survey No. 52/1 of area admeasuring 0-36-70 HRP, being situated at revenue village
Chandip, Taluka-Vasai District-Palghar vide Conveyance Deed dated
13/02/2019
for an agreed consideration of Rs.
Oswald Raphael Misquitta
4
75,00,000/- which was registered before the Dy. Sub-