MR. AKHLAQUEAHMED MAKHDUMALI GHARADE,MUMBAI vs. I T O, WARD-17 (1)(1), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee has filed written statement, containing factual details relating to the addition.

Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions. It is stated that the assessee is a non-resident Indian and he had actually purchased a property from Lotus Enterprises on 09-08-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 57.16 lakhs. The assessee admitted that the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 70.90 lakhs. It was submitted that the entire consideration of Rs. 57.16 lakhs was paid by way of cheque. Accordingly, it was contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that very initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act was not correct, as provisions of sec.50C will not be applicable to a purchase transaction. The Ld.CIT(A), however, took the view that the AO has re-opened the assessment on the basis of information furnished by the Investigation Wing and hence, reopening cannot be held to be not valid. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not furnished any detail or evidence to support his claim that he has only purchased a property and not sold a property. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the assessee filed a Paper Book as well as written submissions. In the Paper Book, the assessee has furnished a copy of 3 agreement for sale dt. 09-08-2010 in order to substantiate his claim that he has only purchased the property and not sold the property. The Ld.DR submitted that this document is an additional evidence furnished by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal and accordingly, he submitted that the same requires examination at the end of the AO.

We notice that the AO was constrained to pass the order ex-parte to the best of his judgment, since the assessee did not furnish the evidences to prove that he has only purchased a property and not sold a property. Before the Ld.CIT(A) also, no material was placed, even though in the written submissions filed before him, it was contended that the assessee has only purchased the flat. Thus, we notice thatthe claim of the assessee could not be examined by the tax authorities in the absence of any supporting evidences. Accordingly, we find merit in the submission of the Ld.DR that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. However, there should not be any dispute that the provisions of section 50C of the Act will be apply only to a transaction of sale of property. The question of assessing the difference between the actual consideration and stamp duty valuation in the hands of buyers was introduced u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act only w.e.f. 01-04-2017. Hence, if the claim of the assessee that he has only purchased a property is accepted, then, the difference between the apparent consideration and stamp duty valuation cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee during the year under consideration.

1. Since the claim of the assessee requires verification at the end of the AO with the supporting documents furnished by the assessee before the Tribunal, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issue to the file of the AO for examining them afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.