SUJIT VAIDYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(9), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal 2 Sujit Vaidya, Mumbai Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the addition of Rs.13,44,400/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being the amount of the stamp duty value in excess of the agreement value for purchases of the residential flats. The appellant submits that the addition made by the assessing officer and upheld by the Hon'ble NFAC be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not referring the matter of valuation of the said properties to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s 55A of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant submits that the matter be referred to the DVO

2. At the very outset, I noticed that the assessee was ex- party before Ld. CIT(A) and on perusal of the impugned orders, I found that assessee was provided number of opportunities. Therefore, after hearing both the parties at length and after perusing the documents placed before me, I found that although Ld. CIT(A) has shown to have issued notice dated 09.10.2024, in which the date of compliance was mentioned as 16.10.2024, but, the said notice was uploaded on the portal on 18.10.2024 and in this regard my attention was drawn towards paper book. Page no 1.

3. After having gone through the documents placed on the court file, I noticed that ‘proper and sufficient’ 3 Sujit Vaidya, Mumbai opportunities were not given to the assessee. In this regard Ld. AR specifically pointed out that assessee had furnished a detailed reply but the same was not taken into consideration at all by the Ld. CIT(A) and an ex parte order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further argued that even AO did not provide the ‘reasons to believe’ for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and even no show cause notice was served upon the assessee before making the additions.

4. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and submitted that proper and sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee but assessee failed to avail the same and therefore requested the bench to dismiss the appeal of the assessee

5. Be that as it may, in my view, the interest of justice would be met in case the issues / lis between the parties is decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, considering the above factual position, the bench feels that the ends of justice would be met only if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). In case proper and sufficient opportunity is not granted to the parties that in that eventuality the rights of the parties shall be prejudiced.

4 Sujit Vaidya, Mumbai Thus, keeping in view the above factual position, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it a fresh on merits by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.