VIJAY RAJARAM MANE,MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 52/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Vijay Rajaram Mane, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had upheld additions made to the assessee's income under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The additions were based on the difference between the stamp duty valuations and the purchase considerations of two immovable properties purchased by the assessee. The primary contention in the appeal was the incorrect attribution of the full value of one property to the assessee, despite it being co-owned with his father, and the incorrect valuation methodology used without reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal found merit in restoring the matter to the AO for a thorough reassessment, allowing the assessee to present his case adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781419 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P. KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNAMIYA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 52/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vijay Rajaram Mane Room No. 33, B.M. Wadia Chawl, Parsi Dhobo Ghat Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, 400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AKUPM5449H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punamiya Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 07.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 22018-19 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 35,82,270/- considering it as 100% share of the assesse instead of considering it as 50% share which is co-owned with his father u/s 56(2)(x) treating the same as difference between Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 52MUM/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration and added the same to the income of the assesse. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 12,83,168/- for the land is Zopadpattis area developed under Slum Redevelopment Scheme SRA Scheme of the Municipal Corporation u/s 56(2)(x) treating the same as difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration and added the same to the income of the assesse.. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the income tax act. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A,234B and 234C of the act. 5. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 9,30,800/- for A.Y. 2018-19. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the transactions relating to the two immovable property wherein the assessee had purchased the properties at consideration below the stamp duty valuations. As the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice on this issue, the assessment was completed vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B dated 26.04.2021 wherein the difference of Rs. 48,65,438/- between the stamp duty valuations and purchase considerations was added u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 07.11.2024, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after observing that the assessee did not substantiate the claim of joint ownership with his son in respect of one of the properties. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) disregarding the assessee’s contention of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 52MUM/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 joint ownership as well as the methodology of valuation without making reference to the DVO. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. After considering the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. AO to make denovo assessment after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 30.09.2025 Anandi. Nambi/STENO आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "