SHRI HUSAIN ASGARALI BHANPURAWALA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2371/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, it is proper to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to explain the difference between the stamp value and the sale consideration.

What were the facts?

The appellant purchased an office property for Rs. 23,50,000, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 57,51,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the difference of Rs. 34,01,000 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was correct in re-opening the assessment and making an addition under section 56(2)(x) without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC

Before: SHRI MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. D.R

O R D E R

Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:

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 →