SHANTIBEN GIRDHARLAL KHATRI,MODASA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 MODASA, MODASA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 845/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 July 2026AY 2020-20214 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in ignoring the assessee's request to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and in not providing a reasoned finding. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a commercial property for Rs. 26,00,000, but the stamp duty authority assessed its value at Rs. 47.47 lakhs. The AO added the difference of Rs. 21.47 lakhs to the assessee's income, considering it as income from lesser purchase value. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% of the AO's addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in making an addition on account of the difference between the sale deed value and the stamp duty valuation without referring the matter to the DVO, despite the assessee's request.

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, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Raval, CA
Hearing: 21/07/2026Pronounced: 29/07/2026

आदेश/O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 23/12/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

As per the note of the Registry there is a delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the above stated application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.845/Ahd/2026 Shantiben Girdharlal Khatri vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 2 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the confirmations of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of lesser purchase value shown in the Sale Deed as compared to the value assessed by the stamp duty authority in respect of the property purchased by the assessee. The AO noted that the assessee alongwith her husband had purchased a commercial property comprising of ground floor and a basement for consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/-. The stamp duty authority, however, worked out the sale value of the property at the Rs. 47.47 lakhs. The AO accordingly taken the said collector rate value assessed by the stamp duty authority as the purchase value of the property and held that the property has been purchased at a lesser consideration of Rs. 21.47 lakhs. He, accordingly, made the addition of Rs. 21,47,450/- into the income of the assesee on account of difference in the value shown in the purchase deed over the value assessed by the stamp duty authority. The assessee submitted before the AO that the stamp value authority/collector rate have been calculated by treating the basement area as well as the ground floor on equal footing, however, the actual value of the property was less. After explaining reasons and submitting that the actual market value of the property was Rs. 26,00,000/- only, the assessee requested the AO that the matter may be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The AO, however, rejected the said contentions of the assessee and made the impugned addition of Rs. 21.47 lakhs.

ITA No.845/Ahd/2026 Shantiben Girdharlal Khatri vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 3 4. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee reiterated her submissions and inter alia submitted that the assessee’s share in the property was only 50%, therefore, the addition should be worked accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) though rejected the contention of the assessee on merits of the addition, however, accepted the said contention that the addition in the hands of the assessee should be restricted to 50% of that has been made by the AO and therefore, restricted the addition to extent of Rs. 10.73 lakhs.

5.

Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on Paper Book Page No. 81 to 89, which is the copy of acknowledgement of letter dated 17.01.2025 uploaded online by the assessee on the Department’s portal. Further, the copy of the letter has also been attached, a perusal of which reveals that the assessee inter alia had made a categorical request to the AO to refer the matter to the DVO. We find that the assessee has also given many reasons to stress the point that the actual market value of the property was lesser than that was assessed by the Stamp Duty Officer. Moreover, the assessee has fairly requested that the AO may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. However, in this case, the AO not only ignored the explanation furnished by the assessee but also did not bother to consider the request for referring the matter to the DVO. The AO simply proceeded to make the addition on account of difference in the valuation assessed by the stamp duty authority as compared to the value mentioned in the Sale Deed. We note that the assessee having made a request to the AO to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, the AO was left with no alternative

ITA No.845/Ahd/2026 Shantiben Girdharlal Khatri vs. ITO Asst.Year 2020-21 4 than to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The action of the AO in ignoring the contentions of the assessee and not giving a reasoned finding thereupon, and further in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, the impugned additions made by the AO and further confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the same is ordered to be deleted. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO had also made addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the property, the same already stood deleted by the CIT(A). With the above observations, the impugned addition is ordered to be deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

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 →