MARIA GORETTY BELLA DIAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Maria Goretty Bella Dias, A- Income Tax Officer, Ward 402, Sidharth, 42(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Mandapeshwar, I C Colony, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Borivali (West) Mumbai - (East), Mumbai – 400051. 400103 . PAN NO. AENPD 5288 C Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Bharat Gandhi, Adv. : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, – SR DR. Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 06/08/2026 : 10/08/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 19/12/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the learned CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

“1. The assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs 10,94,741 being the proportionate difference in agreement value as on the date of registration and agreed value as on the date of booking i.e. 50.76% of Rs. 21,56,700.

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 2 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 3 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

assessee did not furnish the requisite material in response to the notices. The Assessing Officer particularly noted the absence of the booking/allotment letter which, according to him, was necessary to substantiate the assessee's claim that the property had been booked on 1st March 2016. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 23.03.2024. He noted that the assessee had acquired the property for a consideration which was lower than the stamp duty value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The difference of Rs.21,56,700/- was accordingly brought to tax under section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 4 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

3.1 The learned CIT(A), however, was not persuaded by the explanation. He noted that the assessee had not furnished the booking letter before the Assessing Officer and that, according to the material then available, the first payment towards the property was stated to have been made subsequently. The learned CIT(A) also took note of a letter subsequently issued by the builder stating that the flat had been booked in the joint names of the assessee and her husband on 1st March 2016 and that two undated cheques had been issued as advance towards the cost of the flat and GST, with the instruction that the cheques were to be deposited only when the construction work commenced. On that basis, the learned CIT(A) held that no payment had actually been made to the builder on the date of booking and concluded that the condition prescribed by the second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) for applying the first proviso was not satisfied. He accordingly upheld the applicability of the stamp duty value as on the date of registration and sustained the addition, while directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the assessee's actual percentage of ownership in the jointly held property. The learned CIT(A) did not accept the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, holding that the facts were distinguishable. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

“5.1.1. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I have also perused the assessment order. I find that the submissions made in the present proceedings were also submitted during the assessment proceedings. The AO, however, rejected the same for two reasons:

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 5 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

 Appellant could not produce letter of booking issued by the builder confirming that the said flat was indeed booked on 01/03/2016  The first payment made by the Appellant against purchase of the said flat was vide cheque dated 04/12/2018. This was submitted before the AO by the Appellant herself. I find that findings of the AO that the Appellant has not made any payments before 04/12/2018 remains unrebutted by the Appellant. In the present proceedings, the Appellant has furnished a letter from the builder that the flat was booked in the joint names of the Appellant and her husband Mr John Francis Dias on 01/03/2016. However, it is observed that no payments were made to the builder on the date of booking. Cheques were issued by the Appellant, however, the same did not contain any dates. This is evident from the letter issued by the builder: TOWHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

THIS in to state that Ms. Maria Goretty Bella Dias and Me Sohn Francis Dias had booked a flat bearing No B/1103 on the 11th floor admeasuring 398 sq. ft. in Arlaana Residency, a project by Paradigm Reality, through our oftice, Sweet Home Healty on 1 March 2016. They had issued 2 cheques

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 6 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

flat and restrict the addition to such percentage. Thus, appeal is allowed partly. As regards, case laws relied upon by the Appellant, the same are not relevant as facts being distinguishable.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence comprising, inter alia, the booking form, valuation report and affidavit concerning the payment of consideration, together with the relevant bank statements. It was submitted that these documents are material for determining whether the assessee had in fact entered into an agreement fixing the consideration on 1st March 2016 and whether any part of the consideration was paid through banking channels so as to attract the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the additional evidence.

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 7 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

turns upon the factual and legal question as to whether the assessee is entitled to invoke the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) and, consequently, whether the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of booking/agreement, rather than that prevailing on the date of registration, is liable to be adopted.

6.1 The first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) contemplates a situation where the date of the agreement fixing the consideration and the date of registration are different, in which event the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement may be adopted. The second proviso, however, makes the benefit of the first proviso conditional upon the consideration, or a part thereof, having been paid through the prescribed non-cash mode on or before the date of the agreement.

6.2 In the present case, the assessee has, for the first time before the Tribunal, placed on record the booking form and other documents which, according to her, establish that the flat was booked on 1st March 2016. The assessee has also placed before us a valuation report determining the market value as on the date of booking and documents which are claimed to establish payment of part of the consideration through banking channels. These documents go to the very root of the controversy.

6.3 We are of the considered view that the additional evidence cannot be brushed aside without examination. The booking form is

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 8 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

material for determining whether there was, in fact, an agreement fixing the consideration on 1st March 2016. Likewise, the payment documents and bank statements are material for determining whether the statutory condition relating to payment of consideration or part thereof through the prescribed mode on or before the date of the agreement was satisfied. The valuation report is also relevant to the assessee's alternative contention concerning the value of the property as on the date of booking.

6.4 Since these documents were not before the Assessing Officer when the assessment was framed, their authenticity, evidentiary value and factual implications require verification by the Assessing Officer. At the same time, the Revenue must necessarily be afforded an effective opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. In these circumstances, a decision on the merits of the assessee's claim at this stage, without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity of verification, would not be appropriate.

6.5 We accordingly admit the additional evidence in the interest of substantial justice and set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) to the extent of the issue arising under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

6.6 The Assessing Officer shall examine, in particular, the booking form/agreement and determine whether the consideration for

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 9 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

transfer of the property stood fixed on 1st March 2016. He shall further verify, from the primary documentary evidence, including the bank statements, cheque details and the records of the builder, whether any part of the consideration was actually paid through the prescribed banking mode on or before the date of such agreement. The mere issuance of an undated cheque, without corresponding evidence of its presentation, clearance or actual payment within the statutory period, shall be examined in the light of the provisions of section 56(2)(x) and the facts established on record.

6.7 The Assessing Officer shall also examine the valuation report furnished by the assessee and consider the assessee's claim regarding the stamp duty/fair market value as on the date of booking in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. He shall further verify the assessee's proportionate ownership in the property and, if any addition is ultimately found sustainable, determine the amount attributable to the assessee in accordance with her legally established share.

6.8 Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall afford the assessee adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and shall consider all the documents and submissions furnished by her before passing a speaking order in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim, including the applicability of the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b), the sufficiency of the alleged payment, or the

Maria Goretty Bella Dias 10 ITA No. 1544/MUM/2026

correctness of the valuation claimed by the assessee. All these issues are left open for fresh adjudication.

6.9 The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/08/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

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

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai