Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 14/05/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 254/1064866708(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. That the Ld. A.O erred on facts and in law in making addition and confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC of Rs.23,67,572/- u/s 56(2)(X)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act.
That the assessee has not under reported any income.
That the estimate of income and addition made by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by the CIT (A) NFAC on the basis of difference in stamp value and actual value is against the merit, circumstances and in law.
That the Ld. A.O and the CIT (A) NFAC has not considered the submission under which circumstances the property has been purchased and actual cost is affected.
That the Id. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law for not consider the written submission fully towards investment in immovable property, which is bad in law.
The order passed by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by the CIT (A) NFAC is against the merit, circumstances and legal aspect of the case.”
(B) In this case assessment order dated 08/03/2021 was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the I. T. Act. In the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.38,34,272/- (rounded off to Rs.38,34,270/-). In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.23,67,572/- was made u/s 56(2) of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition made in the assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) holding that although the appellant assessee submitted various case laws in his favour, but had not produced any evidence in support of his claim. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14/05/2024 is reproduced below:
“6.2 The appellant in his submission during the appellate proceedings has submitted that the property at House No. MM-57, Kanpur Road Yojna, Lucknow was purchased in an auction for Rs.27,32,720/- and the payment was made starting from 30.4.2012. The appellant has taken the plea that since the property was purchased in 2012 the collector rate should also be taken of 2012.
The contention of the appellant is right but the appellant has not submitted any evidence clarifying the collector rate in 2012. Rather in the documents submitted by him there is a valuation report of the bank for the said property in which it is valued at Rs.36,80,292/-. The appellant has submitted various case laws in his favour but has not produced any evidence in support of his claim that the purchase price for the stamp duty purpose in 2012 was equal to or less than the purchase price of Rs.24,51,000/- ( the appellant has paid purchase price of Rs.24,51,000/- + Stamp duty of Rs.2,57,700/- = Rs.27,32,720/-). In the absence of the same the addition of Rs.9,47,572/- made by the AO in respect of this property u/s 56(X)(b)(B) is sustained.
6.2.1 The second property in question is KH. No. 1567, Natkur, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. This property has been purchased by the appellant for Rs.48,50,000/- but its purchase price for stamp duty valuation is Rs.62,70,000/- and the difference of Rs. 6,14,783/- has been added by the AO u/s 56(X)(b)(B). The appellant in his submission during the appellate proceedings has submitted that the said property was purchased at a value less than the value taken for stamp duty purpose as it is land locked from one side and on the other side it is government encroachment for sewer drainage which is acquired by the district administration. The submission of the appellant has been considered however again the appellant has not submitted any evidence in support of his contention. In the absence of the same I am compelled to sustain the addition of Rs. 16.14.783/- made by the AO u/s 56(X)(b)(B) in respect of the second property purchased by the appellant.”
(C) At the time of hearing before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that no specific requirement was communicated by the learned CIT(A) regarding evidence to be filed in support of the claim of the appellant assessee. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order was passed in undue haste without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to support the assessee’s claim with the evidence that the learned CIT(A) deemed fit to be filed. He further submitted that the issue in dispute regarding addition of Rs.23,67,572/- may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this.
(D) In view of the foregoing in the specific facts and circumstances and as representatives of both the sides are in agreement with this, the aforesaid issue regarding addition of Rs.23,67,572/- is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order on the specific issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/12/2024)