MIRSABMIYA DIVANMIYA SAIYAD,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 29,77,105/-.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with the four other persons purchased a property in joint name for a total consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee was having 1/5 share in the property and contributed Rs. 10 lakhs. The Assessing Officer observed that the market value of the property was of Rs. 1,48,85,524/-. He took the value of the property @ 1,48,85,524/- and calculated the share of the assessee at Rs. 29,77,105/- instead of Rs. 10 lakhs as mentioned in the sale deed. He show caused the assessee to produce the source of the purchase amount. However, the assessee did not furnish any details. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, passed ex-parte order/best judgment assessment order and made the addition of the purchase value of the property of the assessee to the extent of the share of the assessee in the said property taking value of the property and made the impugned addition to Rs. 29,77,105/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer.

The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has not paid any amount more than that was mentioned in the sale deed. He has further submitted that I.T.A No. 23/Ahd/2025 Mirsabmiya Divanmiya Saiyad, A.Y. 2015-16

After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that interests of justice will be taken care of, if an opportunity is given to the assessee to present his case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,