SAURAV DEB PURKAYASTHA,UTTAR PRADESH V. DCIT , NOIDA

ITA 6694/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Saurav Deb Purkayastha against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the addition of Rs. 15,34,640 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This amount represented the difference between the sale value and the allotment price of a capital asset. The assessee argued that the asset was allotted in the financial year 2014-15 for Rs. 60,15,360, a fact not disputed by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of details regarding the circumstances of the allotment and the applicability of section 56(2)(x). Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789574 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 6694/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6694/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Saurav Deb Purkayastha, C-1602, Exotica Fresco Gautam Buddha Nagar Noida-201301. PAN: AZGPP 3765 J Vs DCIT, Noida APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 6694/Del/2025 for assessment year 2022-23 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 28.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080101040(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6694/Del/2025 2. Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties. A perusal of the case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have invoked section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs. 15,34,640/- which represents the difference between the assessee’s capital asset’s sale value of Rs. 75.50 lakhs and allotment price of Rs. 60,15,360/-; respectively, in assessment order as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, the assessee appears to have explained all along before the learned lower authorities that he had in fact been allotted the capital asset in question for Rs. 60,15,360/- only way back in F.Y. 2014-15 i.e. on 20.02.2014(A.Y. 2014-15). Learned DR could hardly dispute that this clinching date has nowhere been disputed in both the lower authorities’ respective findings. Faced with this situation, this tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s foregoing stand in principle; but, at the same time, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have not thrown any light as to under what circumstances relevant capital had been allotted to him; or, for that, whether this case is covered u/s 56(2)(x) 1st to 3rd proviso or not. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6694/Del/2025 All other issues between the parties are kept open at this stage. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.11.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "