Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the footwear business, appealed against an order confirming additions made by the AO. The appeal was filed with a delay of 161 days, which was condoned. The AO had treated a differential amount of Rs.8 lakhs on property purchase and Rs.6 lakhs received as gifts as income.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a revaluation of the property and provided affidavits regarding gifts which were not produced before the AO. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after getting the property valued by the DVO and examining the gift issue.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of property valuation difference and gifts are sustainable, and if the property requires revaluation by DVO.
Sections Cited
56(2)(vii)(b), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 161 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is engaged in the business of footwear. The assessee had purchased a property for Rs.14 lakhs whereas the actual value has been shown at Rs.22 lakhs. The AO had treated the differential amount as Rs.8 lakhs as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It was further submitted that the AO had treated the amount of Rs.6 lakhs received by the assessee from his relatives and family members for the purpose of the said property as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. It was the submission that in the course of assessment the assessee had submitted that the property could be valued which has not been done by the AO. It was the further submission that in respect of gift of Rs.6 lakhs assessee has provided affidavit before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld.AO & ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that in respect of value of the property the issue should be restored to the file of AO for valuation by the DVO. It was the further submission that in respect of gift, no details has been produced before the AO.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that in para 4.2 at page 3, the AO has extracted the submissions of the assessee and in sub-para 2.2(3) the assessee has requested for revaluation of the said property. As the AO has not done the revaluation, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of AO for readjudication afresh after getting the property valued by the DVO and to examine if there any addition is called for in respect of the said amount of Rs.14 lakhs. In respect of the