Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 09.03.2018passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned ITO, Betul [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:-
“(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, materially incorrect and unsustainable in law as well as on facts.
Dr. Rishi Kumar Sehgal, Betul (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred and was not justified in holding an addition of Rs. 30,69,525/- on the basis ofdeemed income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b), therefore, the addition made be kindly deleted. (3) That the appellant craves leave to amend, add, alter, modify or withdraw any of the above ground(s) of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application is filed. On perusal of case file, it is found that the present appeal was filed on 07.05.2018 and thereafter it had beenlisted for hearing on more than fifteen dates. It is further observed that several notices have been sent to assessee through speed-post but the postal authorities have returned with remarks “addressee left” or “addressee denied to receive”. Since ample opportunity have already been given, no further opportunity can be given now. Ld. DR representing the Revenue was ready and willing to argue the case. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the appeal is decided ex-parte qua assessee based on material held on record and after considering the submission of Ld. DR.
Ld. DR drew our attention to assessment order and pointed out that the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasonof “Large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income”. Thereafter, during scrutiny-proceeding, Ld. AO found that the assessee alongwith his wife Smt. Neha Sehgal jointly purchased an immovable property for Rs. 23,60,950/- although the valuation done by Stamps Authority was Rs. 85,00,000/-. Accordingly, Ld. AO confronted the assessee to explain the reason of difference with supporting evidences but the assessee could not make any explanation (Para 4.3 of assessment-order). Therefore, ultimately, the AO applied statutory provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b); computed difference at Rs. 61,39,050/- [Rs. 85,00,000/- (-) Rs. 23,60,950/-] and added ½ share of assessee amounting to Rs. 30,69,525/- as income from other sources.
Dr. Rishi Kumar Sehgal, Betul
Then, Ld. DR carried us to the order of CIT(A) and referring to Para 4 thereof, demonstrated that the assessee made a representation to CIT(A)incorporating the verdict of section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with section 50C and claiming that the AO was under obligation to refer the matter to Valuation Officer but the same was not done. However, the fact is that before AO, the assessee has nowhere disputed that the valuation by stamps authority was higher than fair market value of property. Even before CIT(A), the assessee has simply cited the provision of section 50C and claimed “Sir, considering the above referred provision we hereby object the value adopted by Stamps Duty Authority. Stamp Duty Value of the property of Rs. 85,00,000/- is very high and not acceptable by us. Sir, we therefore require you to determine the value of property by the Valuation Officer.”Therefore, there is no weightage in the claim of assessee; the claim is raised for the sake of claim only. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not satisfied with submission of assessee and did not grant any relief, which he has rightly done.
Ld. DR submitted that the impugned addition made/upheld by lower authorities is a statutory addition mandated by section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the assessee is making a futile attempt to run away from taxation without having any justifiable explanation to substantiate as to why the stamps valuation is not proper or fair.
We have considered submissions of Ld. DR and also perused the orders of lower-authorities. On a careful consideration, we firstly find that the assessee has not made any explanation to AO when called upon to explain the difference in purchase price and stamps authority valuation. Even the assessee has not disputed the valuation done by stamps authority on any ground. Secondly, during first-appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has simply mentioned the verdict of section 50C and made a simple rather vague claim that the valuation done by Stamp Authorities is very high. There is no iota of explanation or substantiation made by Dr. Rishi Kumar Sehgal, Betul assessee as to why it is very high. Therefore, the claim of assessee is for the sake of claim only. We further observe that the addition made by lower- authorities is mandated by section 56(2)(vii)(b) and in absence of a valid explanation by assessee, the same has to be made, there is no escape route. It is further observed that the assessee is not representing his case before us despite several opportunities. Therefore also, in absence of any assistance coming from assessee, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings of lower authorities. Being so, we are inclined to uphold the action of lower-authorities and maintain the impugned addition. The assessee fails in this appeal.
Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/07/2023.