CECILIA RAM BAWALE,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

The above mentioned appeal was filed by the appellant before the ITAT and raised these grounds of appeal :-
Ground No. 2 : Addition of Rs. 2,51,000/- Immovable properties received for inadequate consideration. - As stated above, during the year under reference, the appellant had purchased the residential property situated at C-416, Royal Palms II, Royal Palms Estate, Mayur Nagar, Aarey Colony,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400065 for a consideration of Rs. 49,50,000/-.
We are herewith attaching the copy of Said Sale Agreement vide Annexure A for your reference. However, it was observed by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the Stamp Duty Valuation of the said property is Rs. 52,01,000/- and thus, appellant was asked as to why said amount shall be not considered as sale consideration as per the provision of Section 50C of the act. - It may please be noted that the property under consideration is a residential property situated at Royal Palms the said mall was part of a big residential complex under the brand "Royal Palms" in Aarey Colony, Goregaon.
Ground No 1 ADDITION OF RS. 49,50,000/- Addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. During the financial year assesse has purchased and registered an residential premises Flat No-C-416, Palms
II CHS Ltd. Royal Palms Estate, Mayur Nagar, Gorcgaon (East) Mumbai-400
065. Vide agreement dated 2nd December 2017 from Mr. Roshan Gaonkar.
The above said property has been purchased from present income and previous savings of Mr. Ram Bawale and Mrs. Cecilia Bawale both were doing business for more than 20 years and also Assessee has taken

Cecilia Ram Bawale

2
loan from GIC Housing Finance Limited amounting to Rs. 39,50,000/-.
2. From the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO., it is noticed that the appellant did not appear before the Ld. AO despite several notices issued to him and the Ld. AO passed an assessment order under section 144 of the I.T. Act as best judgement assessment. Before passing this ex-parte assessment, the Ld. AO has even sent a copy of draft assessment order and requested for his objections. The appellant has not responded to this show- notice notice. Left with no choice, the Ld. AO completed the assessment by making addition of the total value of the flat under section 69 of the Act and Rs. 2,51,000/- under section 56(2) of the Act for inadequate consideration.
3. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO., an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) contesting both these two additions. As this appeal was filed with a delay of 791 days, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of appellant stating that here is no sufficient cause for delay and he relied on various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned in his order.
4. The appellant has escalated the appeal to the ITAT and filed an appeal with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order.
5. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has pleaded that due to the following reasons an appeal could not be filed and hence requested the Bench to condone the delay and hear the case on merit and justice may be rendered.
6. It was further argued that the appellant has got a good case on merits and has sources to acquire the immovable property which is a major addition. It was also argued that the appellant took major portion of asset value as loan from GIC Housing Corporation and the addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable to him. Certain additional evidences like copy of sanction of loan from GIC Housing Corporation was also filed and requested the Bench to provide necessary relief to him.

Cecilia Ram Bawale

3
7. The Ld. DR opposed filing of all these additional evidences which were not examined by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) and hence the addition should be confirmed.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

////

(