RAJAVIRI,VILLAGE RAJPUR-KHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGHPAT, BAGHPAT

आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, �द�ली �द�ली पीठ� पीठ�, नई नई �द�ली �द�ली आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण �द�ली �द�ली पीठ� पीठ� नई नई �द�ली �द�ली INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5337/DEL/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2020-21) RAJAVIRI INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGHPAT H. NO. 365, VILLAGE RAJPUR- KHAMPUR, POST-BARAUT, DISTT- OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX BAGHPAT, BAGHPAT, Vs. OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGHPAT, UTTAR PRADESH-250611 MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH-250002, अपीलाथ�Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: GTSPR2305L

अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. Ankit Mahjan, CA ��थ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises

against the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi’s order in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-

26/1087482712(1), dated 17.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

tribunal’s attention to Learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate

discussions upholding the Assessing Officer’s action making

section 56(2)(viib) addition of RS.7,58,232/- in the assessee’s

hands reading as under:-

“06. Adjudication of the relevant grounds of appeal:- 6(a). I have carefully considered the assessment order and the material available on record including the submissions made by the appellant before the Assessing Officer. The facts of the case reveal that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant along with four other persons jointly purchased an immovable property. As per the registered purchase deed, the property was purchased for a total consideration of Rs.25,00,000, whereas the stamp duty value of the said property as adopted by the registering authority was Rs. 56,90,000. The Assessing Officer worked out the proportional share of the appellant in the stamp duty value at Rs.13,53,232, while the purchase consideration attributable to the appellant’s share was Rs.5,94,000. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs.7,58,232 as income of the appellant under the provisions of section 56 of the Income-tax Act. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted that the land purchased was agricultural land measuring about 0.211 hectare and that the consideration mentioned in the purchase deed represented the actual market value of the land. It was further contended that the land was not uniformly cultivable. According to the appellant, only a small portion of the land was fit for cultivation, whereas the remaining portion of the land was uneven, non-levelled and otherwise unsuitable for effective agricultural use. It was therefore argued that the actual market value of the land was much lower than the circle rate adopted for stamp duty purposes. In support of the said contention, the appellant also submitted certain photographs of the land and a valuation report prepared subsequently. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the appellant. The Assessing Officer observed that the photographs submitted by the appellant indicated presence of vegetation and ploughed fields which suggested that agricultural activity was being carried out on the land. The valuation report relied upon by the appellant was also not accepted on the ground that it was prepared much after the date of purchase and therefore could not reliably determine the fair market value of the property as on the date of acquisition.

6(b). I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. The primary contention of the appellant is that the land purchased was not uniformly cultivable and that only a small portion of the land was fit for cultivation, while the remaining portion was uneven, non-levelled or otherwise unsuitable for effective agricultural activity. It is contended that for this reason the actual market value of the property was substantially lower than the circle rate adopted for stamp duty purposes. However, apart from photographs of the land and a valuation report prepared subsequently, no cogent material has been placed on record to substantiate the claim that the fair market value of the property as on the date of purchase was significantly lower than the stamp duty value adopted by the registering authority.

In cases where an assessee seeks to rebut the stamp duty value, such claim is normally required to be supported by reliable contemporaneous evidence available at or around the time of the transaction. Such evidence may include, for example, comparable sale instances of similar land parcels in the same locality executed during the relevant period, revenue or land records indicating the nature and quality of the land, official reports showing that the land was uneven, rocky, waterlogged or otherwise unsuitable for cultivation, valuation reports prepared at the time of transaction, or any other contemporaneous documentary material demonstrating that the prevailing market value of the property was lower than the circle rate. In the present case, no such contemporaneous material has been furnished by the appellant.

Further, the photographs relied upon by the appellant, as noted by the Assessing Officer, show presence of vegetation and ploughed fields indicating that agricultural activity was possible on the land. The valuation report relied upon by the appellant was also prepared much after the date of purchase and therefore cannot conclusively establish the fair market value of the property as on the date of acquisition.

6(c). In the absence of reliable contemporaneous evidence to demonstrate that the stamp duty value adopted by the registering authority did not reflect the fair market value of the property, the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of section 56 and bringing to tax the difference between the stamp duty value attributable to the appellant’s share and the purchase consideration declared in the registered deed.

6(d). Therefore, the addition of Rs.7,58,232 made by the Assessing Officer under the head “Income from Other Sources” is upheld and the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.”

there is no clear-cut indication in both the assessment as wells as

the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings that the assessee’s

land purchased herein is a capital asset going by section 56(vii)

Explanation (d) of the Act. This tribunal is therefore finds merit in

assessee’s in instant first and foremost argument to delete the

impugned addition of Rs.7,58,232/- in very terms. Ordered

accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st July, 2026. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi