SUMEET DEEPAK MURPAN,MUMBA V. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6665/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sumeet Deepak Murpan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,04,19,200 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was based on the difference between the stamp duty value and the sales consideration of a property sold by the assessee. The assessee contended that he did not receive the hearing notices from the CIT(A), which led to his non-compliance and inability to present his case during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25644 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT BARATE
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 6665/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sumeet Deepak Murpan 5th Floor, Somdhan Building, Perry Cross Road, Bandra West Vs. ITO, Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AJNPM 7010 N (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, AR Respondent by : Shri Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), relevant to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-2019. 2. The assessee has challenged this appeal on the following grounds :- 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition u/s 56(2)(x) of I.T.Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,04,19,200/- on account of difference between stamp duty value of property & sales consideration of property. 2. The appellant was not served hearing notices of CIT(A) on registered address & hence could not furnish reply to the same. ITA No. 6665/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sumeet Deepak Murpan 2 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute and or modify, withdraw in any manner what so ever all or any of foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of gold ornaments and jewellery and is a partner in M/s Dhanraj Diamonds. The assessee has filed his return of income dated 30.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs.38,02,760/-. Pursuant to the information that the assessee has sold property at Flat No.11, 11th Floor, Signature Bandra Saroj CHS Ltd., Block No. Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 dated 02.02.2018 for a consideration of Rs.7 crores, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that the property sold by the assessee was below the stamp value, which was determined at Rs.8,04,19,200/-. The ld. AO then passed the assessment order dated 31.03.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act where the ld. AO determined the total income at Rs.1,42,21,960/- after making an addition of Rs.1,04,19,200/- u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act after allowing deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act towards the difference in the sale consideration and the stamp value of the property. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who vide an ex-parte order dated 20.12.2023 upheld the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee, who appeared virtually, contended that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee and the assessee was, hence, unaware of the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority. The ld. AR further contended that ITA No. 6665/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sumeet Deepak Murpan 3 the assessee was non-compliant before the ld. CIT(A) due to genuine reasons and not wanton. Ld. AR prayed that the assessee has got a good case on merits and be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). 7. Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue vehemently opposed for remanding the issue back to the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that several opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee has failed to avail the same. The ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. In the above factual matrix of the case, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices on 15.11.2022, 19.08.2023, 05.09.2023, 03.10.2023, 31.10.2023 and finally on 16.11.2023. The assessee is said to have been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings. Upon considering the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be extended with one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. We hereby direct the assessee to strictly comply with the notices before the ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay on his side and the ld. CIT(A) is to decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submission of the assessee and in accordance with law. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11.02.2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.PS(on tour) ITA No. 6665/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sumeet Deepak Murpan 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "