RAJENDRA MOTIRAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1360/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex parte and allowed the assessee's request to rely on a co-owner's case. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 16,34,391/- as notional income under Section 56(2)(x) on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration of an immovable property. The assessee argued for an opportunity to be heard and to rely on a similar case of a co-owner.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was justified without referring the valuation to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 250,Section 270A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMARShri Ravindra, Sr.DR

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Hearing: 07/10/2024Pronounced: 07/10/2024

सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.05.2024 for the Asst.Year 2017-18 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short).

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under:

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.16,34,391/- made by the Assessing Officer computing the 25 percent share of appellant in excess of value of immovable property adopted by Stamp Value Authority over purchase consideration as alleged Notional Income u/s.56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act, 1961.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the purchase value of the immovable property as per the value adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs.1,86,37,275/- as against the actual purchase value of the said property at Rs.

1,10,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.10,99,9287- adopted by the appellant in the return of income filed while computing his 25 percent share in the same.

4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee has violated the provisions of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act and has under reported his income and therefore, penalty provision u/s.270A(l) attracts.

5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment without referring the valuation of the property in question to the DVO and making additions on the basis of value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.”

3.

Heard both the parties.

4.

I find that the assessment order has been passed ex parte. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue had adjudicated the similar case of one of the co-owner of the same property, which, the assessee would like to rely upon and the matter may be remanded to the ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue in totality.

Considering this submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee, I remand the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication keeping in view the case of the co-owner of the property.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

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 →