RATAN BHAGIRATH KANJI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

PDF

ITA 6103/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 February 2025AY 2018-19Bench: the Ld. Commissioner, however of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition with a liberty to the Assessee to approach the AO for taking necessary action to expedite the matter of the valuation and give effect to the valuation accordingly. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before this Court.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 21,00,000/-, but its stamp duty value was Rs. 31,86,832/-. The Assessing Officer, without receiving a valuation report that the assessee had requested under Section 55A, treated the difference of Rs. 10,86,832/- as undisclosed income under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Held

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition due to time constraints without waiting for the critical valuation report. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh determination, directing them to consider the valuation report.

Key Issues

Whether the addition of the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid for immovable property, as undisclosed income, was justified when a valuation report requested under Section 55A was pending.

Sections Cited

250, 55A, 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Hearing: 16.01.2025Pronounced: 19.02.2025

Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.

Shri Ratan Bhagirath Kanji 2. At the outset, it is observed that despite sending notice for the date of hearing for today, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application, hence this Court is inclined to decide this appeal as ex-parte.

From the orders passed by the authorities below, it appears that the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- as against the market value as per stamp duty value to the tune of Rs.31,86,832/-. Consequently, the Assessee was show caused; in response to which replied that the said property was registered on dated 15.02.2018 as per the copy of the sale agreement as produced. The Assessee also provided the valuation report of the property derived at by an independent Registered Valuer in order to substantiate his claim and further requested the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) to refer the case to the valuation officer as per section 55A of the Act. Consequently, the AO on dated 18.03.2021 & 23.03.2021 referred the matter to the concerned technical unit for valuation of the property as per the provisions of the Act, however, till the date of passing the assessment order on dated 19.04.2021, no such report has been received and therefore the AO treated the amount of Rs.10,86,832/- {being difference between Rs.31,86,832/- the stamp duty valuation – Rs.21,00,000/- consideration amount Shri Ratan Bhagirath Kanji shown by the Assessee} as undisclosed income of the Assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and added the same in the income of the Assessee as undisclosed income.