MR. GILIYAL CHANDRASHEKHARA BHAT ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 750/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2015-16, where the Assessing Officer had added Rs. 92,85,800 to the assessee's income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement price of a property transaction. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been able to present certain crucial documents and details during the earlier proceedings, which were now available, and thus decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778659 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: G.C. BHAT
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.750/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Mr. Giliyal Chandrashekhara Bhat, 8, NPFG Laxmi Industrial Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai, Mumbai - 400053 PAN: AAGPB6965M ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer – 24(1)(4), Piramal Chamber, Lalbagh, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400012 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri G.C. Bhat, CA Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 13/10/2025 Date of Order - 15/10/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 05.12.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, The Ld. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 92,85,800/-on account of difference between the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.750/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 2 stamp duty value and the agreement price as income by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii) by following order of ITO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to give directions to the ITO to adjust the assessed business loss against the income under the head income from other sources and short-term capital gains.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 for the year under consideration, declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had entered into a transaction of the purchase of immovable property. On further verification of the purchase agreement dated 26.12.2014, it was observed that there is a difference of Rs.92,85,800/- between the stamp duty value and the agreement value. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said difference should not be added to his total income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he had taken a flat in the year 2005 and the agreement was entered after the completion of the building in the year 2014. The assessee further submitted that he had made the payment from the year 2005 to 2009. It was further submitted that the flat was allotted to him in 2005 and therefore, the market value at the time of allotment should be considered instead of the market value at the time of registration of the flat. However, in the absence of details of payment made by the assessee and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.750/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 3 the copy of the allotment letter, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.92,85,800/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, the AO also rejected the claim of the assessee of set off of unabsorbed business losses under the head income from other sources and short term capital gains. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in the absence of documentary evidence against the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that on 03.12.2024, the assessee sought an adjournment before the learned CIT(A) for furnishing the requisite details; however, without granting the adjournment, the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 05.12.2024. The learned AR submitted that the details, which the assessee could not file during the assessment proceedings, such as the allotment letter dated 09.12.2005 and the details of payment for the property, are now available with the assessee, and in this regard, brought our attention to the application seeking admission of additional evidence filed separately by the assessee before us. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) submitted that all these details, which are now furnished by the assessee, were not filed during the assessment proceedings and were also not examined by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, it was submitted that these Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.750/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 4 details require examination, as they have been filed for the first time by the assessee. 7. Having considered the submission of both sides and perused the material available on record, it is undisputed that the assessee could not file the details before the AO, and the same could also not be filed before the learned CIT(A), which now form part of the application seeking admission of additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised before us to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after considering the details as filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication of the issue involved. As a result, the impugned order on the issues raised before us is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2025 Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15/10/2025 Prabhat Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.750/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) 5 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "