Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The addition was made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) representing the difference between the actual purchase price and the stamp duty value of an immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not recorded categorical evidence that the property was a "capital asset" nor made a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also noted a precedent that such a reference is mandatory even without the taxpayer's objection.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) is valid without a reference to the DVO for valuation of the immovable property.
Sections Cited
56(2)(vii)(b), 143(3), 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065080299(1) dated 22.05.2024, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Kamal Kishore Pandey 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the lower authorities has made Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.72 lacs representing the assessee’s actual purchase price of Rs.3 lacs viz-a-viz that assessed to the tune of Rs.75 lacs by the stamp authority(ies). The Revenue’s case accordingly before us is that we ought to uphold the impugned addition since representing the said difference attracting section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
We are of the considered view that in this factual backdrop that the learned lower authorities have recorded any categorical evidence that assessee’s immovable property purchased herein amounts to a “capital asset” going by Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Nor they have made any reference to the DVO under 2nd and 3rd proviso thereto. The Revenue at this stage vehemently argues that no such objection for making reference DVO had been raised by the assessee before the lower authorities. We find no merit in the Revenue’s technical objection in light Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Kolkata) that such a reference under section 50C(2) applicable mutatis mutandis to section 56(2)(vii)(b), as mandatory even in absence of any such objection raised by the taxpayer. We thus deem it appropriate to restore the case back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.