Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property jointly with her son for Rs.2,86,75,000/-. The stamp duty valuation was Rs.5,15,16,000/-, resulting in a difference of Rs.2,28,41,000/- which was added to the assessee's income. The assessee claimed the purchase was made jointly with her son, but the addition was 100% of the difference.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered and the addition of the entire difference was made without affording a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal also noted that a similar addition was made to the son's income considering his 50% share.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of the entire difference in stamp duty valuation was justified without considering the assessee's share and affording proper opportunity. Whether the assessing officer was justified in not referring the matter to the DVO for valuation.
Sections Cited
143(3), 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 69, 115BBE, 147, 144B, 56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) dated 10.09.2025 passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 13.08.2022 for AY 2020-21.
Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. “Whether the Id CIT-A,NFAC was justified by passing the order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and personal hearing despite the admitted facts that there are so many glitches on portal resulting details/submissions couldn't be uploaded. 2. Whether the Ld CIT-A(NFAC) was justified by upholding the Assessment order on the issue of invoking section 56(2) on the difference of Rs.2,28,41,000/-due to stamp valuation and declared consideration without considering the nature
3. Whether the Ld CIT-A(NFAC) was justified by upholding the Assessment order on the issue of unexplained investment in property of Rs.2,86,75,000/, despite the fact that all are very much explainable, by invoking section 69 read with section 115BBE without affording reasonable opportunity as the Appellant tried to upload but due to technical glitches could not be uploaded”
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income on 09.01.2021 reporting total income at Rs.7,15,380/-. During the year under consideration, assessee had purchased an immovable commercial property jointly with her son having equal share at a total consideration of Rs.2,86,75,000/-. Sale deed was entered on 12.12.2019 and registered on the same date with Joint Sub-Registrar, Mumbai City-III. In the said registered sale deed, market value for the purpose of stamp duty valuation is recorded at Rs.5,15,16,000/-. Ld. Assessing Officer noted the difference of Rs.2,28,41,000/- between the actual consideration and the market value for the purpose of stamp duty value and added the same in the hands of the assessee u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), treating it as income under the head “income from other sources”. Assessee could not furnish the required information and explanation in the course of assessment proceedings as alleged by the ld. Assessing Officer, which led to the said addition. Assessee had filed reply dated 21.03.2022 which is reproduced in the impugned assessment order whereby it is categorically mentioned that the purchase of the impugned property is made jointly with her son having equal share. However, the addition made is of 100% difference and not equivalent to the share of the assessee in the said property.
3.1. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee had also requested for making a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) of the Department by invoking the provisions of section 56(2) which was not Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala AY 2020-21 accepted. Assessee moved her first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition observing that assessee did not furnish the details in respect of source of investment nor did she file any reply in the course of appellate proceedings. Contrary to this, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to e- proceedings response acknowledgement date 14.08.2024 placed on record in the paper book, whereby details called for in support for the claim made by the assessee were placed on record. It included copy of valuation report obtained by the assessee from the Government registered valuer as an additional evidence for its admission. Assessee also requested the ld. CIT(A) to obtain a report of competent approved valuer of the Department by giving appropriate directions to the ld. Assessing Officer in this regard. Ld. Counsel also referred to another e- proceeding response acknowledgement dated 21.03.2022 which is in response to submission made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings wherein specific mention was made of purchase being made as a jointly owned property having equal share with her son. In this submission also, a request was specifically made for making a reference to ld. DVO for appropriate valuation.
3.2. Ld. Counsel also referred to an affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for certain non compliances observed by the authorities below, more specifically at the first appellate stage. From the perusal of the averments made by the assessee in this affidavit, it is noted that, the person who handled the tax matters had certain serious illness of heart, who ultimately expired on 01.05.2024. It is also noted that assessee is an undergraduate and was dependent on her spouse and tax consultant for making the required compliances. According to Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala AY 2020-21 her, there is no negligence or wilful attempt to avoid furnishing details of documents before the first appellate authority as well before the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the material on record and submissions made before us. We have also gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that assessee had made submissions, both at the assessment stage as well as at the first appellate stage, which were not considered in proper perspective by making addition of the entire difference in her hands even though it was repeatedly submitted that the purchase had been made jointly with her son having equal share. Also, it is a fact on record that assessee has repeatedly requested for making a reference to ld. DVO for appropriate valuation, which has not been considered. It is also noted that similar addition has already been made in the hands of the son of the assessee being 50% co-owner for which assessment order was passed in the case of her son, i.e., Junaid Mushtaq Panirwala, vide order dated 21.03.2025 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B in which addition of Rs.1,14,20,500/- has been made, considering his share to the extent of 50%.
In the given set of facts and circumstances and factual narratives in the above paragraphs, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for denovo meritorious adjudication on the issue for which the impugned assessment wasinitiated. Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to take into consideration, the additional evidence filed by the assessee, forming part of the paper book before us and also comply with the request made by the assessee of making reference to ld. DVO for appropriate valuation as contemplated under the provisions of section 56(2).
Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala AY 2020-21 6. Needless to say that assessee be reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all her submissions, so as to comply with the notices for the hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.