MIJARUL MOLLAH,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1971/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mijarul Mollah, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal due to non-prosecution. The primary issue in the original assessment was the discrepancy between the purchase price of an immovable property and its stamp duty valuation, leading to an addition of income based on the difference. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a valuation of the property, which was not considered in the initial assessment. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and the documents provided, including a valuation report from the District Valuation Officer (DVO).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28727 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Valuation report
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Įी राजेश क ुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1971/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mijarul Mollah (PAN: AUBPM 7434 M) Vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 03.02.2025 For the assessee / Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Gautam Banerjee, A.R For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT Sr. DR ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 27.05.2024 for AY 2020-21. 2. The learned counsel before submitting the merit of the appeal has submitted that there is a delay in filing of appeal and he filed condonation petition to this effect. 2 I.T.A. No. 1971/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mijarul Mollah Condonation petition reveals that appeal order was brought in the notice of the assessee sometimes in the second week of August 2024, and in order to file appeal, time consumed in arranging the file and for this there was some delay. It appears to us that appeal has been filed on 20-09-2024, order of CIT(A) was passed on 27-05-2024. Keeping in view the condonation petition delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee has filed return of income for the AY 2020-21 declaring total income at Rs. 45,73,930/-. The return of income was processed. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there is an investment in immovable property. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response to the notice the assessee submitted the part details of purchase of immovable property but did not submit the details/information of source of investment of fund were once again requested to submit the details and the assessee submitted the details of transaction for purchase of property along with copies of bank statement. On verification the AO noticed that the loan confirmation is submitted of those persons who have not filed their return of income and having no PANs. The AO as per the information available on the record that the assessee had purchased immovable property on 10.01.2020, the Sub-Registrar has determined the stamp duty valuation of the same at Rs. 1,27,71,000/-. Accordingly, the stamp duty valuation of the property, the purchased value of the property determined to Rs. 1,27,71,000/-. Accordingly, as per the provision of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act difference of Rs. 95,71,000/- i.e. actual sale consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- and stamp duty valuation of Rs. 1,27,71,000/- treated as income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has further added Rs. 39,00,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act as the assessee has submitted confirmation letter from whom he obtained loan of Rs. 39,00,000/- but did not submit copies of ITR and copies of bank statement of accounts of the persons from whom the assessee has claimed to have been obtained loan. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed not on merit rather due to non-prosecution. 3 I.T.A. No. 1971/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mijarul Mollah Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee filed his submission dated 01.09.2022 before the AO has made a request to refer his case for valuation of immovable property. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that in response to the notice the assessee has submitted copies of bank statement along with confirmation letter of persons from whom the assessee has claimed that he has obtained loan from them. The Ld. Counsel further submits that all the transaction made through account payee cheque and bank draft. The Ld. Counsel submits that there is a valuation report of DVO dated 16.11.2022 and the assessee has been given an opportunity to place the same before the AO for coming to the right conclusion as the order was passed in absence of valuation report, though the assessee made request for the same. The ld. Counsel of the assessee filed paper book before us. 6. Contrary to that, the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 7. Upon hearing the rival submission of the ld. Counsels of both the parties, we have perused assessment order as well as order of Ld. CIT(A). The case of the assessee is that he purchased a plot for Rs. 32,00,000/- and for registration purpose of the property, the sub-registrar has determined the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 1,27,71,000/- . The assessment order was passed, keeping in view, the stamp duty valuation determined by the Sub-Registrar and the purchase made by the assessee. There was no valuation report though the assessee made request to refer his case for valuation of immovable property. Before us the valuation report by the DVO has been filed. Further we find that there is an addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- i.e. purchase value of the land as the assessee failed to substantiate the amount received by the assessee by way of loan. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed loan confirmation certification and bank transaction before us. Keeping in view the above facts, we are inclined to restore the case of the assessee before the AO with this direction to pass an order after going over the valuation report and documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed 4 I.T.A. No. 1971/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mijarul Mollah by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd February 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 3rd February, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Mijarul Mollah, 55/3B, Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700010 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "