Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning assessment year 2022-23. The issue involved an addition made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, representing the difference between the sale value and allotment price of a capital asset. The assessee claimed the asset was allotted in FY 2014-15.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the date of allotment was not disputed but the lower authorities did not clarify the circumstances of allotment or whether the case fell under the provisos to Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was justified without considering the provisos and the circumstances of allotment of the capital asset.
Sections Cited
143(3), 56(2)(x)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
2022-23 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 28.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080101040(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte. case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have invoked section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs. 15,34,640/- which represents the difference between the assessee’s capital asset’s sale value of Rs. 75.50 lakhs and allotment price of Rs. 60,15,360/-; respectively, in assessment order as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, the assessee appears to have explained all along before the learned lower authorities that he had in fact been allotted the capital asset in question for Rs. 60,15,360/- only way back in F.Y. 2014-15 i.e. on 20.02.2014(A.Y. 2014-15). Learned DR could hardly dispute that this clinching date has nowhere been disputed in both the lower authorities’ respective findings.
Faced with this situation, this tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s foregoing stand in principle; but, at the same time, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have not thrown any light as to under what circumstances relevant capital had been allotted to him; or, for that, whether this case is covered u/s 56(2)(x) 1st to 3rd proviso or not. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law.
Ordered accordingly.
All other issues between the parties are kept open at this stage. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.