SHRI. AMIT ASHOKKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21 (1)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee is contesting two types of additions made by the AO, viz., addition of Rs.1,27,125/- made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and the addition of Rs.5,26,400/- made u/s 68 of the Act.

I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee along with his parents had sold a flat for a consideration of Rs.1,53,00,000/-. The stamp duty value determined by the sub-registrar was Rs.1,61,47,500/-. Hence the AO proposed to made addition of the difference between the above said values u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee requested the AO to refer the matter of valuation to DVO. Since the AO did not receive valuation report from DVO before the completion of the assessment, he assessed the difference

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee could not appear before LdCIT(A) for the reasons beyond his control. She further submitted that the report of DVO has since been received and hence the same also requires to be considered. Accordingly, she prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of Learned CIT(A) for adjudicating all the issues afresh, after hearing the assessee.

The Ld D.R did not object to the prayer put forth by Ld A.R.

I noticed earlier that the Learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the prayer put forth by Ld A.R requires to be accepted. Affording proper opportunity of being heard would promote the cause of justice and further no prejudice shall be caused to the revenue. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by LdCIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the LdCIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.