MANSUKHLAL GANESHMAL SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6080/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the prior dismissals, granted the assessee one last opportunity to prove the 2008 sale agreements by submitting bank statements and allotment letters/sale agreements. The AO is directed to reconsider the case after these documents are produced.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-response despite multiple opportunities to submit documents proving sale agreements were entered into in 2008. The assessee claimed personal difficulties prevented them from responding.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence regarding the date of sale agreements, despite previous non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Pronounced: 16/05/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant filed an appeal stating that Ld. NFAC-CIT(A) upheld the addition made by Ld. AO relating to difference in stamp duty value and purchase consideration as ‘income from other sources’ under section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act without appreciating the facts of the case. It was also stated in the grounds of appeal that the matter was not referred to valuation officer before making the addition, despite making a request.

2.

During the hearing proceedings, the Ld. AR of the appellant filed several details. But, the affidavit filed by Ld. AR of the appellant shows that the appellant’s grievance is that 4 opportunities were given to him, but due to some personal difficulties, he could not gather documents to be produced before the Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed his appeal because there is no response from appellant nor any reason was given for not responding to the notices. The Ld. AR of the appellant requested that one opportunity may be given to the appellant to represent his case effectively before the AO. It is also fairly conceded that the papers submitted now before ITAT were not filed before lower authorities.

2 Mansukhlal Ganeshmal Sanghvi

3.

The Ld. AR opposed the request of Ld. AR of appellant and relied on the orders of lower authorities.

4.

Rival submissions are heard. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that 4 opportunities were given to the appellant to produce necessary documents to demonstrate that the sale agreements were entered into in 2008 itself. But, since there was no response from the appellant, the appeal was dismissed. As requested by the Ld. AR of the appellant, one more opportunity is given to the appellant to demonstrate that the sale agreements were entered into in 2008 itself and not in 2018. The appellants are directed to submit their bank statements to prove that advances were paid by account payee cheque/draft to the builder in 2008 and also submit proof that these flats were allotted to them in 2008 itself, either by way of allotment letter or sale agreement. The Ld. AO is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant to file all documents required and also refer the valuation to valuation authority, if required and asked by appellant as per law and complete the assessment afresh.

5.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/05/2025.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →