Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Asha Shivajirao Bhise, challenged an addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for AY 2013-14 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. This addition arose from the difference between the stamp duty value (₹3,03,61,000/-) and the consideration paid (₹1,01,00,000/-) for a jointly purchased flat in Mumbai. The assessee contended that title issues, non-marketable title, and restrictions on transferability negatively impacted the property's price, but failed to provide supporting evidence to the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant evidence regarding the property's title problems and lower valuation. The assessee was also instructed to provide details of any addition made in the hands of the co-owner. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a fair hearing, with the possibility of seeking a remand report from the JAO if new evidence is filed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) based on the difference between stamp duty value and consideration paid for immovable property is justified, considering the assessee's claims of title defects and marketability issues affecting valuation.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144B, Section 56(2)(vii)(b), Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
I.T.A.No.2110/PUN/2024 (Assessment Year 2013-2014) Asha Shivajirao Bhise, CIT (Appeals), Delhi Bhise Hospital, vs. LIC Building, Ambajogai Road, Latur-413512, Maharashtra PAN : ADTPB 2259 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 ORDER
PER : MANISH BORAD, AM
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 06/08/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dt. 29.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
2 ITA.No.2110/PUN./2024 (Asha Shivajirao Bhise) 2. The grievance of the assessee is against the addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for the alleged difference between stamp duty value of the immovable property on the date of registering the sale deed and the amount of consideration paid for purchase of flat referred in the sale agreement.
When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past also, the assessee failed to appear on the dates of fixed for hearing on 01.01.2025, 03.03.2025, 21.04.2025, 23.06.2025, 02.09.2025, 12.11.2025 & 27.01.2025. Such non-appearance of the assessee indicates that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the documents available on record.
Ld. DR, at the outset, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and she declared income of ₹ 36,41,168/- in the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 31.07.2013. Based on the information about high value transaction carried out by the assessee during the year, valid notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued followed by issuing of other statutory notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Ld.AO observed that assessee during the year along with Mrs. Chandrakala 3 ITA.No.2110/PUN./2024 (Asha Shivajirao Bhise) Shesherao Sarvade (mother of assessee) jointly purchased flat at Worli, Mumbai. The purchase consideration is shown at ₹ 1,01,00,000/- whereas market value as per stamp duty valuation is ₹ 3,03,61,000/-. The Ld.AO, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act concluded that for the difference amount of ₹2,02,61,000/-, the addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- (50%) deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, after making the said addition, assessed the income at ₹ 1,37,71,670/-.
Aggrieved with this addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and claimed that there was a problem with the title of the flat. The assessee’s title has not been clearly marketable. She also submitted that society in which the flat is situated has been promoted by the Government employee and, therefore, restriction on free transferability of sale of apartment existed and, therefore, price was negatively impacted. We find that apart from these submissions, assessee failed to file any other evidence in support of her claim in problems of the title of the property. The Ld.CIT(A) at page No.6 of the impugned order has observed that assessee has not filed any evidence in support of her claims of problems in the title of the property. Further, Ld. DR failed to bring any information about the fate of the addition, if any, made in the hands of the joint owner namely, Mrs. Chandrakala Shesherao Sarvade.
4 ITA.No.2110/PUN./2024 (Asha Shivajirao Bhise) 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh. Further, we direct the assessee to furnish all the relevant evidence in support of her claim about problems in the title of the immovable property i.e. other related issues giving rise to the lower valuation of the flat. The assessee is also directed to provide the details of addition, if any made, in the hands of the co-owner namely, Mrs. Chandrakala Shesherao Sarvade. Ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) if new evidence are filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Considering all these details, Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair hearing of opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.