INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), RAMPUR, RAMPUR vs. SHAFEEK AHMAD, H NO KASHIPUR , TEHSIL SWAR, RAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7709/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2026AY 2019-203 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the immovable properties in question were not 'capital assets' as defined under section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, the addition under section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,21,58,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, representing the difference between the purchase price and stamp value of four immovable properties. The CIT(A) reversed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between the purchase price and stamp duty value of immovable properties can be taxed under Section 56(2)(x) when the properties are not considered 'capital assets'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv
Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 16.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081841659(1), dated 17.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144

ITA No.7709/Del/2025 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised in seeking to revive section 56(2)(x) addition of Rs. 2,21,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 28.02.2025 and reversed in the CIT(A) discussion, it emerges that the same represents the difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price viz-a-viz corresponding stamp value thereof, involving four immovable properties concerned.

3.

That being the clinching case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that none of the aforesaid four immovable properties forming the subject matter herein happens to be a “capital asset” going by section 26(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i) of the Act; defining a “property”; as under: “property” means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely:—…………………”

4.

Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly interfered with the impugned addition made in the assessment proceedings in the assessee’s hands. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive ground therefore. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.7709/Del/2025

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

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 →