TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income returned of Rs. 4,11,060/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice in not issuing hearing notice u/s. 250 thereby not providing appellant opportunity to file submissions and be heard. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits of the matter with respect to the addition made in the order in respect of difference between the stamp duty value and sale consideration of the property in the order passed u/s. 250 dated 29/04/2025 and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law in upholding and confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in the assessment order without referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the order passed is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law in confirming ad-hoc 1/5^th addition of Rs. 5,70,643/-, being the source of payments for purchase of property on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law in not providing opportunity of personal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew Delhi on 29.04.2025. 2. The Appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred the present appeal under Section 253 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 01/08/2025 giving rise to a delay of 38 days (from 28th June 2025 to 4^th Aug 2025. 3. The Appellant is an individual. The Appellant was employed as a police constable, educated upto SSLC, not having the knowledge of income tax matters, not filed the tax returns in the past, since did not have incomes attracting tax liabilities, had to depend entirely on the professionals to look after the assessment and appeal proceedings, and to advice on the tax matters and accordingly engaged one Mr S. Deepak claiming to be a tax practitioner/Chartered Accountant having, Mobile No. 9986733721 email ID: [email protected] partner of M/s Tax Books Advisors, having office at No. 31/1, BVR Plaza, 8^th Cross, Rajajinagar, 1-N Block, Bangalore 560010 to take care of his tax matters. 4. To his rude shock and surprise, the Appellant came to know later that there was complete deficiency in services, failed to represent before the tax authorities, did not make submissions during the assessment and appeal p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733. Date: 04/08/2025 Place: Bengaluru D.V. S. Swamy APPELLANT 3.1 On going through the application for condonation, we find that the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed period for the reason that the assessee had engaged a Tax practitioner/Chartered Accountant named Mr. S. Deepak, to take care of his tax matters. However, the assessee came to know later that the said tax practitioner failed to represent before the tax Authorities, did not make any submissions before the Authorities & falsely assuring that everything would be taken care of. All along the developments, notices, orders were suppressed from the knowledge of the assessee. When it became unmanageable of late, the tax professional admitted and tendered apologies to the assessee. In this regard the assessee has also submitted a letter dated 29/07/2025 in which the tax professional had admitted that they have inadvertently missed responding to the notices & also deeply regrated for the same. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Ground on order passed u/s. 148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer is in contravention to the provisions of section 151A(1) and section 130 of the Act and notification issued thereunder authorising only the Faceless Assessing Officer to issue notice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) The notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act are without providing copy of mandatory approval u/s. 151 of the Act. (iii) The assessment order passed without effective service of enquiry notice u/s. 148A and notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act is in violation of the principles of natural justice and bad in law. (iv) The notice issued under section 148 of the Act without disclosing the "information" as contemplated in Explanation 1 to section 148 of the Act and consequently the notice issued is bad in law. (v) The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law as the notice has several material defects and is issued without complying with the mandatory conditions for issue of the notice. (vi) Ground on the "information" on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. AO in respect of the addition made u/s. 69 amounting to Rs. 5,70,643/-, being unexplained income/source for purchase of the property, and (b)Confirmed the disallowance made by the Ld. AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 13,81,500/-, being difference between the guideline value and the sale consideration for the immovable property. 4. The said additions of the Ld. CIT(A) are" arbitrary and without issuing mandatory notices under Rule 5(1)(ii)(b) and Rule 5(1)(x)(a) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 issued under Section 250(6B) and (6C), and is in violation of Sections 250(1) and 250(2)(a) of the Act. 5. That being, aggrieved by the order u/s. 250 dated 29/04/2025 in ITA No. NFAC/2019-20/10435874 bearing DIN No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075871995(1)passed by the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru for the impugned AY 2020-21 in ITA No. 1735/Bang/2025. 6. That during the course of assessment proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer, certain details in support of the case have not been produced as the appellant was in employment with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed to this application for admitting additional evidence, the same is required to demonstrate that the appellant's family had 20 acres 27 Guntas of agricultural (wet) lands near Ramanagar. Out of the agricultural income of the joint family of the appellant, payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-was made in cash to the Vendor. 10. In respect of Document No. 5, mentioned in the table above and annexed to this application for admitting additional evidence, the same are required to demonstrate that the apartment project/building is not notified for fixing the guideline value. The Sub Registrar arbitrarily fixed the stamp duty value, even when the property is unauthorisedly constructed, no occupancy certificate issued by BBMP, and eviction notices to the Residents for demolition as the whole building is illegally constructed. 11. In respect of Document No. 6, mentioned in the table above and annexed to this application for admitting additional evidence, the same are required to demonstrate that the BBMP, vide Information Letter-2 dated 20/06/2024, proposed to demolish the said immovable property as the same was unauthorised and no occupancy certificate was issued and construct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or may allow such evidence to be adduced. In the present case, the assessee submitted that the assessee had engaged a Tax practitioner/Chartered Accountant named Mr. S. Deepak, to take care of his tax matters. However, the assessee came to know later that the said tax practitioner failed to represent before the tax Authorities, did not make any submissions before the Authorities & falsely assuring that everything would be taken care of. All along the developments, notices, orders were suppressed from the knowledge of the assessee. When it became unmanageable of late, the tax professional admitted and tendered apologies to the assessee. This being so, we find good and sufficient reason in not submitting the additional evidences before the lower authorities. Accordingly, we admit these additional evidences as in our opinion these are essential for adjudication of the issue in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings, the assessee furnished all the relevant documents as requisitioned like statement of income, copy of ITR acknowledgement, loan statement, copy of sale deed, Form No. 16, etc. as required by the AO. 9.3 During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had purchased the immovable property i.e. residential property with address Minerva Maple, No. 759, Unit No. 401, 4th Floor, Viswa Bharathi Housing Complex Layout, Hosakehalli Village, Uttarahalli, Hobli Bengaluru 560 085 for purchase consideration of Rs. 42 lakhs while the stamp duty valuation of the said property was Rs. 55,81,500/- during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed his submissions on 19.9.2024 and 7.10.2024 and furnished all relevant documents as requisitioned. 9.4 The AO finally concluded the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs. 47,95,777/- as detailed below :- i. Total income as per return of income u/s. 148 of the Act - Rs. 4,11,060/- ii. Difference of Rs. 13,81,500/- (Stamp duty value of the property Rs. 55,81,500/- less actual purchase consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/- paid by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 79 pages containing therein various copies of documents/notices/statement/ record/ deed/order in support of his claim. 13. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee is a Police Head Constable and working in the Department of Police, Government of Karnataka since 28.5.1997. The assessee has a habit of saving. Further, as the assessee's total income for the assessment year under consideration was less than Rs. 5 lakhs and accordingly, the assessee on an honest & Bonafide belief did not file his return of income as the tax liability was nil. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had purchased a property of Rs. 42 lakhs, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, with regard to difference of Rs. 13,81,500/- i.e. difference of stamp duty value and actual purchase consideration, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that said flat was not saleable at the stamp duty value since the BBMP had ordered for demolition due to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbitrary and therefore, we direct the AO to delete the entire addition as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC amounting to Rs. 5,70,643/- and accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 15.1 Now with regard to addition of the differential value of Rs. 13,81,500/-, we observed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed this ground of appeal by saying "if the assessee had any grievance with regard to the valuation of the property, then he should have requested the AO to refer the case to valuation officer". But the assessee did not do the same. On perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also find that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not given any cogent reason in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,81,500/ -. On perusal of the assessment order, we observed that the differential amount of stamp duty value as per the stamp duty authorities amounting to Rs. 55,81,500/- and actual purchase consideration paid for the flat amounting to Rs. 42 lakhs was added by the AO under "income from other sources" as per section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the said flat is not saleable at stamp duty value for the reason that the BB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has been taken. And in reference (5), the Executive Engineer (Basavanagudi) Division has issued an order dated 12-03-2024 to clear the unauthorized parts of the building. Accordingly, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Girinagar Sub-Division, Assistant Director, Urban Planning, South, has been requested to identify the unauthorized parts of the building constructed contrary to the plan in a letter dated 14-05-2024. Therefore, as per the report of the Executive Engineer (Basavanagu Division) in reference (5), the Assistant Director, Urban Planning (South) and the Assistant Executive Engineer (Girinagar) Sub-Division have jointly ordered to vacate the opposite parts of the building, and therefore, it has already been stated in the memorandum of reference (6) that the families residing in the building should immediately vacate the opposite parts of the building within 07 days of the receipt of this letter. However, since it has been found that the owners of the building have not vacated any of the families residing in the above building, they are advised to vacate it urgently within 03 days of the receipt of this memorandum. It has also been stated that the cost. As....