ROSHNI MADHUSUDAN SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3020/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration is correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 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)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri Aditya Manohar Rai
Hearing: 06.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024
2.

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).

3.

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.

4.

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.

6.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2024.

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 →