POOJA VIKRAM CHUGH,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2184/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Pooja Vikram Chugh, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) regarding the assessment of undisclosed investments under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute arose from a property transaction where a discrepancy was noted between the sale consideration declared in the deed and the guidance value assessed by the Sub Registrar. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added a portion of this difference as undisclosed income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) after the assessee failed to respond adequately to the notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's lack of representation, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470985 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH NAGARAJ GADDI
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2184/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Pooja Vikram Chugh, No.16, 7th Cross, Opp. Railway Parallel Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. PAN : ABSPC 9418 K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA. Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067847089 (1)] dated 21.08.2024. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 30.07.2014 for the captioned Assessment Year. Subsequently, as per the information available with the Department, assessee purchased property bearing Survey No.13/4 and Survey No.13/5 situated at Sonnapanahalli, Village : Jalhobli, Bengaluru, from Smt. G. Shridevi on 04.02.2024 along with four other family members. As per the registered sale ITA No.2025/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 deed, the total sale consideration paid for the said property was shown at Rs.2,02,00,000/-, whereas, as per registration charges collected by the Sub Registrar was Rs.2,41,72,000/- which is 1% of the guidance value of Rs,2,41,72,000/-. As there is variance of rs.39,72,000/- in the value adopted by the assesse and tht of the guidance value. Therefore, the difference amount was brought to tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, case was reopened and various statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee has submitted only part reply on 05.02.2022 and 26.02.2022. The AO, after considering the material available before him, 20% of the difference value (Rs.7,94,400/-) as noted above were added as undisclosed investments and treated as income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs.19,58,060/-. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the CIT(A) gave various chances to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Accordingly, the case was decided on the basis of the material available before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 18 days. The reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel submitted that assessee being a lady was not aware of the appellate proceedings and when the Order was passed and hence she could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and humbly requested that a chance be given to her to represent her case before the CIT(A). ITA No.2025/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 5. The learned DR strongly objected to the plea of the assessee as assessee was given several opportunities of being heard before the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that assessee and four others purchased a property jointly as noted above and there is a difference in the registered value mentioned in the deed and guidance value by the Sub-Registrar. Accordingly, 1/5th share is added in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and case was not properly represented before the lower authorities. Considering the undertaking that if assessee is given a chance to represent her case, assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), we are of view that in the interest of justice assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to properly represent her case before the CIT(A), hence, the issue is remitted back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh. Needless to mention that assessee be provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard and assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not take unnecessary adjournments, for speedy disposal of the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated : 17.02.2025. /NS/* ITA No.2025/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "