Simal Prasad (Alias Bimal Prasad), Darjeeling V. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 169/KOL/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Simal Prasad against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which had added the difference between the sale consideration and the market value of a property as undisclosed sale consideration under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The property in question was purchased by the assessee through a registered deed dated 24.07.2014, for Rs.5,42,500, while its market value was assessed at Rs.15,70,800. The assessee contended that the lower sale price was due to his long-term possession and use of the property for his dental clinic, which was supported by a certificate of enlistment from Darjeeling Municipality.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128119 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी ͬगरȣश अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.169/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Simal Prasad....................................................................... Appellant Hermitage, Holmden Road, Dist-Darjeeling, W.B - 734101. [PAN: CPFPP6187R] vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling.................................................... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subrata Singh, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 17, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 17, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.01.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ 2. The sole issue involved, in this appeal, is relating to the value of the property purchased by the assessee vide registered deed dated 24.07.2014. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee as per the said deed has paid only a sum of Rs.5,42,500/-, whereas, the market value of the property was at Rs.15,70,800/-. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) and added the difference of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed as compared to the market value as undisclosed sale consideration of the property. I.T.A. No.169/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Simal Prasad 2 3. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that in fact, in this case, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not attracted. That in fact the assessee was already in possession of the shop in question as the father of the assessee was running a dental clinic there. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied on the certificate of enlistment issued by Darjeeling Municipality for the year 2011-12, whereby, Mr. Bimal Prasad, the assessee has been allowed to run dental shop in the property. The ld. counsel has submitted that in fact the transfer of the property was done in the year 2013 itself and part payment was made, whereas, the possession of the shop was already with the assessee since many year. That the transaction was done at a lesser rate than the market rate as the assessee was already in possession of the property since long and that there was no question of any extra payment made by the assessee in respect of shop in question. The lower consideration was paid for the reason that the assessee was already running in shop since long in the said premises. 4. Since, the ld. AR has demonstrated the reason for the low sale consideration of the shop settled as compared to the market price, we therefore, do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in making the impugned addition and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Kolkata, the 17 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ͬगरȣश अĒवाल /Girish Agrawal] [संजय गग[ /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 17.04.2023. RS I.T.A. No.169/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Simal Prasad 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Simal Prasad 2. ITO, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling 3. CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches