Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold a land for Rs. 2,15,00,000/- and claimed a long-term capital gain. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- based on the stamp duty valuation being higher than the sale consideration.
Held
The Tribunal held that the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the sale consideration was within the tolerance limit. The addition made by the AO and affirmed by the Commissioner is liable to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO based on stamp duty valuation over the sale consideration is sustainable when the difference is within the statutory tolerance limit, and whether proper DVO reports were considered.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 55(A), 50(C)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.07.2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short Ld. Commissioner) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) for the AY 2013-14.
In the instant case, the assessee has sold a land to M/s. Yogeshwar Farms Private Limited for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- and claimed the long term capital gain of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- in the return of income filed on dated 28th September, 2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,57,50,330/-. The AO considered the said claim of the assessee and ultimately found that the stamp duty value of the property is of Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited Rs.387,39,000/- and the assessee has sold the property for Rs.2,15,00,000/- i.e. less than the value adopted or assessed by the Valuation Authorities of the State Government and therefore he vide assessment order dated 25.09.2017 under Section 143 (3) read with under Section 147 of the Act, ultimately made the addition of Rs. 1,72,39,000/- being differential amount between the stamp duty valuation and the value declared by the assessee.
The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and claimed that on the request of the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) -17, Mumbai has asked to AO to refer the valuation and submit the report of the DVO, however, the Ld. Commissioner contradicted the said claim of the assessee and asked the assessee to provide the copy of the DVO, on the reason that how the assessee came to know about the report of the DVO called from the AO.
The assessee before the Ld. Commissioner neither filed any information nor provided any DVO report. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner also issued multiple letters to the AO and the concerned Ld. PCIT to provide the report of the DVO, if any, in the case of the assessee, however, neither the status report nor the report itself was provided to the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, the ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Thus, the assessee being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal. The ld. Counsel at the outset by drawing attention of this Court to the Page nos. 73-84 of paper book has demonstrated that the District Valuation Officer – 1, I.T. Department, Mumbai– 12 has initially issued preliminary
Jyoti Embroidery Private Limited valuation report dated 22.11.2019 under Section 55(A) and 50 (C) of the Act, along with annexures 1 and 2, on the basis of valuation and sale instances, estimating the fair market value of the property under consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,17,78,000/- and thereafter vide final valuation report dated 22-11-2019, reiterated the value of the property to the tune of Rs. 2,17,78,000/-.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances and documents available on record including valuation reports and the submissions of the Assessee, which are not refuted by the Ld. DR. The aforesaid reports are not in denial by the Ld. D.R. however, the same are contrary to the findings of the authorities below, as the Ld. Commissioner has specifically mentioned in the order that no such direction was given for referring to the valuation of the property to the DVO.
6.1 Whatsoever, it may be, the assessee has filed DVO’s preliminary and final valuation reports, wherefrom it clearly appears that the District Valuation Officer -1, Mumbai has valued the property under consideration to the tune of Rs.2,17,78,000/- and it is an admitted fact that the assessee sold the property under consideration on a consideration of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- and the differential amount between the DVO report and the consideration amount shown by the assessee is of Rs. 2,78,000/- only, which is admittedly within the tolerance limit/leverage granted by the Statute and thus, the addition made by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner, is liable to be deleted, however, subject to verification of the DVO’s reports by the AO and thus, we direct the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer {JAO} to verify the DVO’S reports and on being finding the same as genuine, delete the addition under consideration.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.12.2025.