Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the appellant purchased a property for Rs. 4,67,450/- (50% share) while the stamp duty value was Rs. 30,73,000/- (50% share). The AO wanted to adopt the stamp value for assessment, and the appellant requested referral to the DVO. However, the DVO's report was not received before the assessment order was passed.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not respond to multiple notices from the AO and CIT(A). Despite this, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to grant two more effective opportunities and remitted the matter back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration is correct.
Sections Cited
56(2)(x)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H (SMC
Before: Shri Amit Shukla (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
The Ld. AO received information that the appellant has purchased a property where the consideration was mentioned at Rs. 4,67,450/- (50% share) whereas stamp value of the same is Rs. 30,73,000/-(50% share). The Ld. AO wants to adopt the stamp value for assessment purposes and the appellant has objected to the same and requested the Ld. AO to refer the issue to the departmental valuation officer for valuation purposes. The report from the DVO for valuation purposes was not received by Ld. AO before passing assessment order. As the assessment is getting barred by limitation,
2 Roshni Madhusudan Sharma the Ld. AO made an addition to Rs. 26,05,550/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short).
Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it could be seen that the appellant did not respond to four notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the main ground of appeal taken by the appellant is that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider his request to give two to three days extension to file necessary documents. Ignoring the request of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) passed appellate order.
5. Fact remains that the appellant did not respond to four notices issued in span of one and half year and there was no response from the appellant’s side. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, it is decided to afford two more effective opportunities to the appellant. The appellant is directed to furnish all required particulars and before the Ld. AO. With these directions the matter is remitted to the file of Ld. AO.
The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2024.