RATAN BHAGIRATH KANJI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
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.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before 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.
Heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the AO, due to time constraints and without waiting further for the valuation report by the valuation officer, treated the amount of Rs.10,86,832/- being difference between the stamp duty valuation and consideration paid/shown by the Assessee. As the valuation of the property as per provisions of section 55A of the Act, is relevant for proper adjudication of the issue, hence for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the AO for determination afresh, while taking into consideration the valuation report as determined or to be determined by the valuation officer.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.02.2025.
More judgments on Section 55A
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Naghma Mosarrat, Gaya Bihar vs ITO, GayaITA 306/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Juris Matrix Advisors Private Limited… vs ITO Ward 12(3)(1), MumbaiITA 1831/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shri Ganesh Subramaniam, Chennai vs ITO, Ncw-9(1), ChennaiITA 1942/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026