AMARJIT KAUR RANJIT SINGH ANAND,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the ld. AO to considered the valuation report of the DVOdespite the fact the appellant has filed the valuation the DVO's val
2. On the fact in law, the L the Act, to the in the impugn
2. At the outset, t that the Registry has present appeal. It w affidavit seeking co averments made the learned Commission section 250 of the In within the prescribe serious medical ailme issues and pneumon prolonged period fro stated that due to s mentally incapacitat consequently, could
Chartered Accountan preparation of subm the omission came t without any further d deliberate nor attribu to unavoidable med support of the said pl
Amarjit K
ITA n report of the independent valuer there luation.
ts and circumstance of the case Appellan
Ld. CIT(A) erred inconfirming addition u/
e extent of Rs. 22,50,000/-, as per the rea ned order or otherwise.
he learned counsel for the asse s pointed out a delay of 306 da was submitted that the assess ondonation of the said delay erein, in substance, are that t ner (Appeals) dated 04.06.2024
ncome-tax Act, 1961, could not ed period as the assessee was ents, including bronchial asthm nia, rendering her completely b m September 2023 to mid-202
such illness, the assessee was ted from attending to her leg d not forward the appellate nt. Upon recovery and during missions in penalty proceedings to light, following which the a delay. It is asserted that the de utable to negligence, but occasi dical circumstances. Medical lea have been placed on record.
Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
2
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
by disputing nt's case and /s 56(2)(x) of asons stated essee submitted ays in filing the ee has filed an y. The relevant he order of the 4 passed under t be acted upon s suffering from ma, bone density bedridden for a 25. It is further physically and gal affairs and, order to her g the course of s in June 2025, appeal was filed elay was neither ioned solely due documents in 3. Addressing to th the delay occurred d that the assessee wa appeal within the per the delay be condone
4. Per contra, the the prayer for condon
5. We have caref perused the material
Act, an appeal before days from the date communicated to th dispute that the appe assessee has explai prolonged illness, su the affidavit and the satisfied that the ass filing the appeal with a liberal approach applications for cond fides or deliberate substantial justice is explanation furnis
Amarjit K
ITA he affidavit, the learned counsel due to bona fide and unavoidab as prevented by sufficient cause riod of limitation. It was, therefo ed in the interest of substantial j learned Departmental Represe nation of delay.
fully considered the rival su l placed on record. Under the p e the Tribunal is required to be f e on which the order appea he assessee. In the present ca eal has been filed with a delay o ined the delay by placing r upported by medical records. A e accompanying documentary e sessee was prevented by suffic hin the prescribed period. It is w is required to be adopted wh donation of delay, particularly inaction is attributable to th s at stake. In the facts of the pr hed appears reasonable
Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
3
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
l submitted that ble reasons and e from filing the fore, prayed that justice.
ntative opposed ubmissions and provisions of the filed within sixty aled against is ase, there is no of 306 days. The eliance on her
After examining evidence, we are ient cause from well settled that hile considering where no mala he litigant and resent case, the and credible.

Accordingly, we cond and admit the appeal
6. Briefly stated, purchased a residen
Vihar, Powai, Mumb
M/s Shree Mahavir M on 27.03.2018. On authority valued th
Officer, therefore, p stamp duty value an section 56(2)(x) of the 6.1 The assessee co property was booke allotment letter wa
₹1,75,00,000, and th
2017. It was submitt
56(2)(x), the stamp d be adopted. The asse approved valuer estim as on the date of agre
6.2 The Assessing O and made a referenc the third proviso to Amarjit K
ITA done the delay of 306 days in f l for adjudication on merits.
the relevant facts are that ntial flat situated at Flat No. 7
bai, for a consideration of ₹1,7
Metalcraft Pvt. Ltd. The sale deed n the date of registration, th he property at ₹2,36,86,732. roposed to treat the differenc nd the stated consideration as e Act.
ontended before the Assessing ed on 06.06.2017, pursuant as issued specifying the co hat the entire consideration wa ted that in terms of the first pr duty value as on the date of agre essee also furnished a valuation mating the value of the property eement.
Officer, however, did not accept e to the District Valuation Offic section 56(2)(x). As the DVO’s
Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
4
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
filing the appeal t the assessee
705, Supremus,
75,00,000 from d was registered he stamp duty
The Assessing ce between the s income under Officer that the t to which an onsideration at as paid in July roviso to section eement ought to n report from an y at ₹1.84 crore the explanation cer (DVO) under report was not received by the time
Officer proceeded to difference between th and the sale consider
6.3 During the first received, wherein the crore. The learned C the addition to ₹22
valuation and the dec
7. Before us, the le firstly, (i) the stamp ought to have been c
56(2)(x) and if same i provided under sect warranted.; and sec valuing the property date of agreement.
8. We find consid behalf of the assesse provides that where and the date of regis as on the date of agr of the prescribed con
Amarjit K
ITA the assessment was completed make an addition of ₹61,86, he stamp duty value on the dat ration.
t appellate proceedings, the DV e value of the property was deter
Commissioner (Appeals) accord lakh, being the difference betw clared consideration.
earned counsel for the assessee duty value as on the date of considered in view of the first pr is found to be within the toleran tion 56(2)(x) of the Act then condly, (ii) even otherwise, the y as on the date of registration erable merit in the submission ee. The first proviso to section the date of agreement fixing th tration are not the same, the st reement may be adopted, subje nditions. Further, the valuation
Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
5
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
d, the Assessing
,732, being the te of registration
VO’s report was rmined at ₹1.97
dingly restricted ween the DVO’s e contended that f the agreement roviso to section nce limit of 10%
no addition is e DVO erred in n instead of the ns advanced on n 56(2)(x) clearly he consideration tamp duty value ect to fulfillment by the DVO has admittedly not been agreement. For ready of the Act is reproduc
(2) In particular, and without following incomes, shall be sources”, namely :-
(i) to (ix)
……………
…….
48[(x) where any person after the 1st day of (a) any sum of money, thousand rupees, t
(b) any immovable pro
(A) without considerat the stamp duty val
49[(B) for a consideratio consideration, if th amounts, namely:-
(i) the amount of fifty
(ii) the amount equal t

Provided that consideration fo registration are agreement may b

Provided further case where the thereof, has been payee bank draf account 51[or thr on or before the d

Provided also tha by the assessee
Assessing Officer m the provisions of se be, apply in relatio sub-clause as they

53[Provided also t sub-section (1) of s effect as if for the substituted;]
(c) any property, other
(A) without considera thousand rupees, t
(B) for a consideration by an amount exc
Amarjit K
ITA n carried out with reference y reference, the first proviso to ced as under:
t prejudice to the generality of the provisions chargeable to income-tax under the head receives, in any previous year, from any per f April, 2017,-
, without consideration, the aggregate value the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; operty,- tion, the stamp duty value of which exceeds f lue of such property; on, the stamp duty value of such proper he amount of such excess is more than the h
- thousand rupees; and to 50[ten] per cent of the conside-ration:]
where the date of agreement fixing or the transfer of immovable property not the same, the stamp duty valu be taken for the purposes of this sub-clau that the provisions of the first proviso sh amount of consideration referred to n paid by way of an account payee che ft or by use of electronic clearing syste rough such other electronic mode as ma date of agreement for transfer of such im at where the stamp duty value of immovable on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) may refer the valuation of such property to a V ection 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155
on to the stamp duty value of such property f y apply for valuation of capital asset under tho that in case of property being referred to in section 43CA, the provisions of sub-item (ii) o e words “ten per cent”, the words “twenty r than immovable property,- ation, the aggregate fair market value of the whole of the aggregate fair market value o n which is less than the aggregate fair market ceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate
Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
6
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
to the date of section 56(2)(x) of sub-section (1), the d “Income from other rson or persons on or of which exceeds fifty
; fifty thousand rupees, rty as exceeds such higher of the following g the amount of y and the date of ue on the date of use :
hall apply only in a therein, or a part eque or an account em through a bank ay be prescribed 52], mmovable property:
e property is disputed of section 50C, the Valuation Officer, and 5 shall, as far as may for the purpose of this ose sections:
the second proviso to of item (B) shall have y per cent” had been which exceeds fifty of such property; t value of the property e fair market value of such property as ex
…………………

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Amarjit K
ITA the appeal of the assessee nced in the open Court on 24 CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand
8
A No. 4377/MUM/2025
is allowed for /12/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai