Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an order confirming an addition of Rs. 10,72,932/-. The addition was made due to a difference between the face value and stamp duty value of an immovable property purchased by the assessee. The assessee contended that this difference was due to a time lag between purchase and registration, during which stamp duty rates were revised.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had primarily suffered due to inadequate presentation of facts before the lower authorities. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the difference in property valuation.
Sections Cited
56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Pramod Devi Maheshwari, 12, 2nd Floor, Room -25, Pollock Street, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AFAPM6610H] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata - 700107 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Pampa Ray, Sr. DR, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.11.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, there is a delay of 60 days in filing of this appeal, which has been requested to be condoned as under:
“With due respect, I, Smt. Pramod Devi Maheshwari (PAN: AFAPM6610H), most humbly submit the following:
1. 1. I am filing an appeal before your Hon'ble Tribunal against the appellate order dated 17.042025 passed by the Learned CIT(A)-NFAC 2. The said appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of 60 days, which expired on 16.06.2025, due to severe and unforeseen medical reasons which are detailed in the accompanying Affidavit for Condonation of Delay.
3. The delay was caused solely due to a medical emergency involving acute Hypertensive crisis, spondylosis, and nerve pain that left me incapacitated and unable to manage my legal affairs for a significant period. The delay is entirely unintentional and bona fide.
4. I have enclosed all relevant supporting documents, including medical certificates and doctor's advice, as Annexure-A to the affidavit.
Pramod Devi Maheshwari 5. I have a strong prima facie case on merits, as will be evident from the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. In light of the facts submitted, I earnestly pray that your Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal. Admit the accompanying appeal for a hearing on its merits.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we condone the delay and admit the case for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 17.04.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”].
2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO added an amount of Rs. 10,72,932/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. This action was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) through the following finding:
“5.1 I have gone into the facts & circumstances of the case. During the appellate proceedings, notices have been issued to the appellant. In response to the same, the appellant submitted reply dated 23.12.2024 wherein the appellant has submitted copy of sale agreement, fee receipt issued by the office of sub registrar SR-V, Jaipur dated 17.06.2015. In the submissions made by the appellant, the appellant has herself admitted that there is a difference between face value and stamp duty value of the immovable property purchased by her amounting to Rs. 10,72,932/-. The appellant has further submitted that the norms of valuation rate of property change from time to time. But the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of the change in Circle valuation rates of property as decided by the Govt Authorities. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to adduce anything to justify her grounds of appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10,72,932/- made by the A.O. is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 2.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:
“JURISDICTIONAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS 1. Erroneous Reassessment The reopening under Section 147 was without valid "reasons to believe and lacked jurisdictional satisfaction rendering the assessment void ab initio Pramod Devi Maheshwari 2. Violation of Natural Justice: The impugned orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are contrary to the principles of natural justice, as they failed to: Consider the Appellant's documentary evidence. Provide adequate opportunity to justify the variance in property values 3. Non-Application of Mind: The AD and CIT(A) acted on conjecture and surmises without examining the factual matrix or legal provisions, including: The time gap between purchase and registration. Market fluctuations affecting stamp duty values. B. SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS 4. Incorrect Application of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) The addition of Rs. 10,72,932/-is legally untenable as: The difference arose due to the time lag between purchase (2015) and registration (2016), during which stamp duty rates were revised. The Appellant provided the sale agreement and payment receipts, proving the bonafide nature of the transaction.
5. Failure to Consider Evidence The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal despite the Appellant submitting Copy of the sale agreement Fee receipts from the Sub-Registrar's office.
Arbitrary Confirmation of Addition: The CIT(A) wrongly upheld the AO's addition without: Requiring the Department to disprove the Appellant's evidence Examining whether the stamp duty value reflected the market rate at the time of agreement (not registration). C. RELIEF SOUGHT 7. The Appellant prays that the Tribunal Quash the impugned orders of the AO and CIT(A). Delete the addition of Rs. 10,72,932/- Grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Pramod Devi Maheshwari D. GENERAL GROUNDS 8. The Appellant reserves the right to: Add, alter, or amend the grounds of appeal
”
3. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the assistance of Ld. DR. The Ld. DR took us through the grounds of appeal and pointed out that through ground number 2 there was an averment that adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee and also documents filed were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). It was also pointed out that the assessee was not very forthcoming in terms of presenting her case. However, there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back for fresh adjudication.
4. We have carefully perused the documents before us and have also heard the Ld. DR. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the assessee has suffered mainly on account of inadequate presentation of facts before the authorities below. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to file appropriate documents, even if the same need to be filed under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, before the Ld. CIT(A).
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.