SUMAN DEVI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD3(1) JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 185/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unrepresented before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the issue of the difference between the flat's purchase price and government value should also be restored to the AO for readjudication. The AO is directed to issue fresh notices and provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which had dismissed the assessee's ground concerning the purchase of a flat at a price lower than its guideline value, invoking Section 56(2)(x). The CIT(A) had previously restored other issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the assessee being unrepresented before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition representing the difference between a flat's purchase price and its government valuation, under Section 56(2)(x), should be remanded to the AO when the assessee was unrepresented during original assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/08/2025Pronounced: 18/08/2025

Assessee represented by Sri A.K. Jajodia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10270955 dated 07/03/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

Shri A.K. Jajodia, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the only issue in the assessee's appeal was against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the assessee's ground in respect of the purchase cost of a flat at a price lower than the guideline value. It was a submission that on other grounds, the ld. CIT(A) had restored the issue to the file of Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had not been able to produce all the evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was a submission that in regard to the issue of the said valuation of the flat, the ld. CIT(A) had invoked

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →