SMT. BHAGWATI MOHATA,COOCH BEHAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, I.T. DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1696/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 September 2026AY 2024-20256 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that as per the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered if substantial payment was made through banking channels before the agreement date. Since the agreement was for Rs. 1,23,51,430/- and advance payment was made, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,23,51,430/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,35,660/- as income from other sources, considering the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value on the date of sale deed registration. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty value on the date of sale deed registration or the date of agreement to sell should be considered for taxing the difference between consideration and stamp duty value for immovable property purchase, when advance payment was made before the agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajaria, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1696/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2024-25

Smt. Bhagwati Mohata Vs. Assessment Unit, I.T. C/o. M/s SalarpuriaJojodia& Department, NFAC Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [PAN: AMTPM3379B] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Jhajaria, AR Respondent by : Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR Date of hearing : 02.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 31.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2024-25.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee entered into a registered agreement sell on 22.01.2021 for purchase of immovable property, wherein the Vender therein have agreed to sell the immovable property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-. The Assessee entered into Registered deed of conveyance on 18.09.2023 for the very same agreed sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-. The case of the

ITA No.1696/Kol/2026 Smt. Bhagwati Mohata; A.Y: 2024-25 Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. An Assessment order came to be passed on 20.12.2025 by making addition of Rs.11,35,660/-, observing that there is a difference in the stamp duty value of property, as the circle rate of the property is Rs.1,46,22,750/- and Assessee being co-purchases, purchased the property by showing sale consideration at Rs.1,23,51,430/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.11,35,660/- (being share of the Assessee) has been considered as the income of the Assessee from other sources and added to the returned income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 20.12.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 31.03.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2026, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that, the Assessee had entered into registered agreement sale on 22.01.2021 and made substantial payment of Rs.91,00,000/- as advance sale consideration through banking channel, wherein parties to the Agreement have agreed to execute the sale deed on the total sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-, which is as per circle rate prevailing as on the date of agreement sell. Therefore, submitted that as per the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the valuation for such property as on the date of agreement shall apply. Thus, Page | 2

ITA No.1696/Kol/2026 Smt. Bhagwati Mohata; A.Y: 2024-25 submitted that the Authorities below committed error in making/ upholding the addition of Rs.11,35,660/-. Accordingly, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently submitted that as on the date of execution of sale deed, the circle value of the subject property was Rs.1,46,22,750/- and the Assessee along with her husband purchased the property for the sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-, which is lesser than the circle value of the property, therefore, Assessee share of 50% of Rs.11,35,660/- has been rightly considered as the income from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thus, relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the registered agreement sale entered into by the Assessee along with her husband as purchaser with the vendor M/s Crescent Vanijya Private Limited, therein agreed to execute the sale deed for total sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-. The said sale consideration mentioned in the sale agreement was per the then prevailing market value/ circle rate. The Assessee along with her husband have paid a sum of Rs.91,00,000/- as advance sale consideration during the execution of the sale agreement through banking channels. Pursuant to the said registered sale agreement dated 22.01.2021, the deed of conveyance came to be executed on Page | 3

ITA No.1696/Kol/2026 Smt. Bhagwati Mohata; A.Y: 2024-25 18.09.2023 by mentioning the total sale consideration at Rs.1,23,51,430/-.

6.

As per the Assessing Officer, the stamp value as on the date of execution of sale deed is Rs.1,46,22,750/- and the sale consideration of the property is of Rs.1,23,51,430/- mentioned in the sale deed, which is less than the market value. Accordingly, Assessee being the co-owner, addition of 50% share of Rs.11,35,616/- has been made in the hands of the Assessee.

7.

As per the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, where the date of agreement fixing the 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 purposes of sub-clause (x) of Section 56(2) of the Act. Further as per second proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. For the sake of ready reference, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is reproduced as under:- Page | 4

ITA No.1696/Kol/2026 Smt. Bhagwati Mohata; A.Y: 2024-25 “56(2)(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after 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,- (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; [(B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely:- (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to [ten] per cent of the consideration:] Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the 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 purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed], on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property:” 8. In the present case, the Assessee has paid the advance sale consideration of Rs.91,00,000/- on or before the registered sale agreement dated 22.01.2021 by way of banking transaction, and the details of the said payment has been duly mentioned in the agreement sale, wherein the parties have agreed to execute the sale deed as per the then prevailing circle value at total sale consideration of Rs.1,23,51,430/-. Therefore, in view of proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the valuation as on the date of agreement sell has to be taken Page | 5

ITA No.1696/Kol/2026 Smt. Bhagwati Mohata; A.Y: 2024-25 into consideration and as stated earlier the valuation as on the date of agreement sell being Rs.1,23,51,430/-, the Ld. Assessing Officer committed error in considering the valuation as on the date (18.09.2023) of sale deed i.e., Rs.1,46,22,720/-. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Ld. Assessing Officer committed error in making the addition which has been erroneously upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted.

9.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 09.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.09.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →