MEHVISH HADEE BHAVNAGARWALA, MUMBAI V. CIT (A) 46, MUMBAI

ITA 2151/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4379 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2151/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Mehvish Hadee Bhavnagarwala B–204, 264, Zia Apartments Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central Mumbai 400 008 PAN – AOFPA2292F ................ Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–17(2)(2), Mumbai ................Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date of Hearing – 28/06/2022 Date of Order – 22/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 13/11/2021, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following ground: Mehvish Hadee Bhavnagarwala ITA No.2151/Mum./2021 Page | 2 “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax 46 erred in confirming the additions of Rs.16,22,000, made by the AO u/s 56(2)(ii B being the difference between the agreement value and stamp duty value.” 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the sole ground, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and has earned income from salary, income from other sources and income from house property, during the year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income on 07/12/2015 declaring total income at Rs. 6,46,540. During the course of assessment proceedings, from the copy of agreement, it was observed that during the relevant financial year, assessee purchased two immovable properties. Accordingly, assessee was asked to explain as to why the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not attracted in the present case and as to why the amount of Rs. 16,22,000, being difference between the stamp duty valuation and the consideration paid as per the agreement, be not added to the total income of the assessee. In reply, assessee submitted that the assessee purchased property for Rs. 62,74,000, whose stamp duty value was higher i.e. Rs. 78,96,000. The assessee further submitted that at the time of purchase in February 2015, the property belongs to village and because of bad condition of road, improper facilities of light and water order, the actual price was lower than the market price. The assessee also submitted that he still owe balance of Rs. 7,74,000 as on 31/03/2017 to the builder due to not providing better facilities and amenities etc. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 26/12/2017 passed under section Mehvish Hadee Bhavnagarwala ITA No.2151/Mum./2021 Page | 3 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 16,22,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide ex parte impugned order dated 13/11/2021, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any contradictory material being available on record. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. As the impugned order has been passed by the learned CIT(A) ex- parte qua the assessee, the learned Representative appearing for the parties, during the course of hearing, fairly agreed to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on the issue raised in the present appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex–parte due to non–appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Further, now in appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned A.R. and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the larger interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Mehvish Hadee Bhavnagarwala ITA No.2151/Mum./2021 Page | 4 learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after consideration of all the details / submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Thus, the sole ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2022 Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22/08/2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai