Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2016-17, and his case was selected for scrutiny regarding property investments. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 7,03,032/- to his income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act due to the difference between the property's purchase price and its stamp duty valuation. The assessee failed to provide an explanation for this discrepancy, and his appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee's repeated failures to cooperate with lower authorities. However, to uphold the principle of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one final opportunity to be heard, with a caution to cooperate in the proceedings.
Key Issues
The key issues were the validity of the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the difference between property purchase price and stamp duty value, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case after repeated failures to cooperate with lower authorities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula dated 3rd February, 2025 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17.
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Vijay Shankar Pandey 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 26.12.2016 showing total income of Rs.2,70,080/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS specifying the reason as “whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed”. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 18.09.2017 and 07.06.2018 respectively and duly served digitally. The assessee submitted documents electronically and on perusal of documents, it appears that the assessee purchased property at Rs.25,88,859/- whereas the Market value of the property as per Stamp Duty Authority is Rs.32,91,891/-. Accordingly, the assessee was show-caused to explain why the excess amount of the Market value of the property as per Stamp Duty Authority from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till date. In absence of any explanation offered by the assessee, it is evident that the assessee as nothing to explain in this regard. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.7,03,032/- (Rs.32,91,891 - Rs.25,88,859) was added back to the total income of the assessee under the head income from Others Sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the assessed taxable income of the assessee at Rs.9,73,112/-.
Being not satisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 3rd February, 2025.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard both the sides. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.9,73,112/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Vijay Shankar Pandey 8. We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/06/2025.