Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Hasha Kacharu Tandel, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC concerning AY 2014-15. The appeal stemmed from an assessment order that made additions under Section 143(3). The assessee's primary contention was that certain details supporting her grounds of appeal could not be filed before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and explanations during assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite the assessee filing a detailed paper book before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without allowing the assessee to file necessary details and explanations, and whether the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and Section 69 were justified.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(2), 142(1), 56(1)(vii)(b), 69, 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 07.08.2024 National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that certain details in support of the grounds raised before ld.CIT(A) could not be filed which resulted in the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. Prayer made for providing one more opportunity of hearing to go before ld.CIT(A) to file necessary details so that adjudication on merits can be carried out in light of details filed by the assessee.
Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) but raised no objection if issues are restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 e filed on 26.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.2,28,250/-. After the case selected for scrutiny through CASS and followed by serving of valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act and made addition u/s.56(1)(vii)(b) of the Act at Rs.2,76,47,500/- and also addition for Income from Other Sources u/s.69 at Rs.15,33,000/- and assessed income at Rs.2,94,64,050/-. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and the finding of ld.CIT(A) reads as under :
“7. Decision: All the information available on record alongwith the impugned assessment order, the grounds of appeal and submissions on various dates and case laws cited by the appellant in this case has been considered. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has also requested to file an additional ground in this appeal which has been accepted and taken on record. The ground wise issues are discussed as under: 7.1 Grounds of appeal number 1: Vide ground no 1, the appellant has challenged the action of AO in adding stamp duty valuation of Rs. 2,76,47,500/- in respect of five properties, received in lieu of Development Agreement as income from other sources u/s 56(2) (vii)(b) of the Act and submitted that the correct head of income is income from Capital Gains. The appellant has submitted copies of lease agreement, tripartite agreement and agreement for registration of flats in support of her claim. A perusal of the agreement for registration of one of the flats reveals that the fair market value of the flat is Rs. 54,49,000/- but the same has been allotted to the appellant without any consideration. The relevant para of agreement for registration of the flat is as under:
"The Promoters hereby agrees to allot and provide to the Purchaser Flat no 1001 on the 10th Floor in 'A' Wing admeasuring about 685 sq. ft. (carpet area) without any consideration and as per the terms recorded between the promoters and Purchasers in the Development agreement dated 25.07.2007"
Further, the section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act states as under:
"56(2)(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017,-
(a)...
(b) any immovable property,-
(i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property:
(ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration:
Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause:
Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property;"
Thus, it is clear that from one of the agreements for registration dated 18.02.2014 that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are clearly attracted. Further, the appellant neither during the course of assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings submitted any explanation for not invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)of the Act. In the absence of any explanation and observing the violation of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act the claim of the appellant in this ground of appeal is not found acceptable. Therefore, the action of AO in adding stamp duty valuation of Rs.2,76,47,500/- in respect of five properties, as income from other sources u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the ground no 1 raised in this appeal is dismissed. TAX DEPAR of the Act is upheld. Accordingly.
7.2 Grounds of appeal number 2:
Vide ground no 2, the appellant has challenged the action of AO in adding expenses on account of stamp duty and registration fees amounting to Rs.15,33,000/- as unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act. The appellant has claimed that the said payment was made by her son through his bank account and has submitted copy of few pages of passbook. However, the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to justify the source of income of his son. Even the appellant has failed to file the copy of the return of income of her son to justify creditworthiness of her son. Further, the appellant has claimed that the main source of the said payment was sale of properties in the earlier assessment year but has failed to submit any documentary evidence in this regard. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the source of expenses remains unverified. Therefore, the addition of Rs.15,33,000/- as unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Act on account of stamp duty and registration fees for AY 2014-15 is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground no 2 is dismissed.
7.3 Additional ground in appeal:
Vide additional ground in appeal, the appellant has challenged the action of AO in charging the income in F.Y. 2013-14 whereas the transaction pertains to F.Y. 2007-08 and should be taxed accordingly in the FY 2007-08. The appellant has submitted that the plot was allotted to her in F.Y. 2006-07 by CIDCO and tripartite agreement was entered into in F.Y. 2007-08 therefore the gain pertains to A.Y. 2008-09 and not to A.Y. 2014-15. In this regard, it is noticed that the appellant had received flats during AY 2014-15 without any consideration, therefore, the AO on the basis of agreement for registration of the flats registered during A.Y. 2014-15 charged the income to tax under head Income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. No infirmity is found in the action of AO in treating the income u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act during A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.”
From going through the above finding of ld.CIT(A) we find that at various places, ld.CIT(A) has observed that “In the absence of any explanation and observing the violation of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act the claim of the appellant in this ground of appeal is not found acceptable”. Ld.CIT(A) has also stated that the appellant neither during the course of assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings submitted any explanation. On going through the impugned finding, we notice that at various places ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has failed to furnish necessary details which was required for adjudication of the grounds raised in the appeal. Now before us the assessee has filed detailed paper book running into 211 pages containing all the details claiming that the impugned additions are uncalled for. We therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it proper to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 01st day of August, 2025.