REKHA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 29(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Rekha Singh Vs. ITO 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3rd Floor, C-10, Complex, LBS Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AUXPS8355F Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Shri. Ramesh Iyer Respondent by : Shri. Ajay Singh Date of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH :-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh view that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act to be applied. On query the assessee explained that as per the proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the Stamp Duty value on date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of this clause provided that the amount of consideration has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for the transfer of such immovable property. In the case of the assessee the date of the agreement was 16.12.2010 whereas purchase deed was registered on 29.12.2014. The first payment of ₹ 1 lacs through banking channel has been made on 18.10.2010 by the husband of the assessee. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and stated that since the property was transferred for the consideration which was less than the stamp duty value, therefore, 50% of the total difference was assessable as income in the assessee‟s hand. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee holding that since the payment before date of registration has been made only by the other co-owner of the property i.e. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh husband of the assessee, and justified the action of the AO in

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh making the addition of ₹ 24,33,350/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, The Ld. Counsel submitted that other co-owner of the property was assessee‟s husband and the property was purchased in their joint name and it is irrelevant as to who of them has made the payment before the date of registration. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the agreement for the property was entered on 16.12.2010, therefore, the same should be taken for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(v) of the Act and not the date of registration being 28.12.2014. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench, Mumbai in the case of Poonam Ramesh Shahjwan V/s ITO(IT) 4(2)(1) A.Y. 2014- 15 vide ITA No. 2252/Mum/2019 and the decision of ITAT, Pune in the case of Sanjay Dattatrya Dapodikar V/s ITO, Ward 6(2) (2019) 107 taxmann.com 219 (Pune Trib.). The Ld. Counsel also filed paper book comprising copies of letter of allotment, registered agreement for sale and stamp duty value of the property. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Heard both the sides and perused material on record. The assessee along with her husband jointly purchased immovable

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh property for a consideration of ₹ 84,15,300/-, the value of property determined by the Stamp Duty Authority was of ₹ 1,32,82,000/-. The registration of the purchased property was made on 29.12.1014. However, the property was allotted as per the letter of allotment filed dated 16.12.2010. The first cheque for payment towards the purchase of the property was made on 18.12.2010. The assessee has paid ₹ 27,73,980/- before registration of the agreement with registrar of stamps, Maharashtra. We have perused the following provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) :- Where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year. from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017, (a) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property. (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property, (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by anymode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property As per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) as reproduced as above provides that where the date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of the aforesaid provision, provided on or before a part of the consideration has been paid by any mode other than cash. We have also perused the decision of ITAT, Mumbai as referred (supra) by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Poonam Ramesh Shahjwan wherein on the similar facts the value of the flat was determined on the date of booking of flat after taking into consideration the payment made by the assessee through banking channel before the registration of the flat as laid down in the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. We have also considered the decision of ITAT, Pune bench referred by the Ld. Counsel as referred above in the case of Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar (Supra) wherein held that where date of agreement for fixing amount of consideration for purchase of a plot of land and

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh date of registration of sale deed were different but assessee, prior to date of agreement, had paid a part of consideration by cheque, provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) being fulfilled, stamp value as on date of agreement should be applied for purpose of said section. 7. In the light of the above facts and findings we direct the AO that the stamp duty value on the date of allotment in the case of the assessee on 16.10.2010 be taken for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and not stamp value as on the date of registration of sale deed . Further, we do not find any merit in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that before the registration of the flat only other co-owner i.e. Ajay Kumar Singh husband of the assessee has made payment. Since, it is joint property owned by assessee and her husband and its immaterial who had made payment before the date of registration of the property. Therefore the grounds of appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.10.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Mumbai Date 30.10.2023 ANIKET SINGH RAJPUT/STENO

P a g e | 8 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2023 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh 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 अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.