CIT(A) must provide detailed reasoning under Section 250(6) when upholding property addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)

The ITAT Mumbai held that the CIT(A) failed to provide detailed reasoning as required under Section 250(6) when upholding the AO's addition of Rs. 14,098,500 under Section 56(2)(x)(b) regarding immovable property purchase below stamp value. The tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices was not credible given proper email service, the CIT(A) merely upheld the AO's decision without considering the merits of the appeal regarding the determination of acquisition date based on a booking letter dated 13/4/2007. The matter was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh consideration with proper reasoning. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the addition of Rs. 14,098,500 under section 56 (2) (x) (b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the stamp duty value of a property purchase.

Brief facts:
The individual assessee filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19, with the case selected for limited scrutiny regarding a property investment. The property was purchased for Rs. 3,620,000, but the stamp duty value was determined at Rs. 17,718,500, resulting in the disputed addition of Rs. 14,098,500.

Arguments before authorities:
The assessee claimed that the property was purchased in 2007, with the stamp duty value as of the allotment date to be considered. However, the assessing officer relied on a later agreement for sale in 2017 to determine the stamp duty value. The CIT-A upheld the assessing officer's decision due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.

Decision and reasoning:
The ITAT Mumbai found that the assessing officer's rejection of the allotment date for determining the property's acquisition date was not justified. The CIT-A's failure to consider the merits of the case and the specific ground of appeal raised by the assessee led to the appeal being restored for proper consideration and opportunity for submission. The appeal was allowed, directing the CIT-A to decide the issue on its merits after providing a fair hearing.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the direction to the CIT-A to reconsider the matter based on the additional submissions to be provided by the assessee within the prescribed time frame.

---