KALPANA CHANDRAKANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2)(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the learned CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2018–19, raising following grounds:

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 2 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

“Grounds of appeal rounds of appeal - Ground No. 1: a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering the the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering the the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering the documentary evidences viz. allotment letter dated 03.11.2007, the registered documentary evidences viz. allotment letter dated 03.11.2007, the registered documentary evidences viz. allotment letter dated 03.11.2007, the registered agreement dated 16.11.2017, bank passbook extracts, and the valuation report agreement dated 16.11.2017, bank passbook extracts, and the valuation report agreement dated 16.11.2017, bank passbook extracts, and the valuation report for valuation of immovable property as on 03.11.2007, which were duly for valuation of immovable property as on 03.11.2007, which were duly for valuation of immovable property as on 03.11.2007, which were duly submitted submitted submitted and and and acknowledged acknowledged acknowledged vide vide vide the the the Acknowledgement Acknowledgement Acknowledgement Receipt Receipt Receipt No. No. No. 338919011160725 dated 16.07.2025, and dismiss 338919011160725 dated 16.07.2025, and dismissing the appeal on the ground ing the appeal on the ground that the Appellant did not submit any document to discharge his onus. that the Appellant did not submit any document to discharge his onus. that the Appellant did not submit any document to discharge his onus. The Appellant submits that the documentary evidences filed during the appellate The Appellant submits that the documentary evidences filed during the appellate The Appellant submits that the documentary evidences filed during the appellate proceedings be considered for adjudication of the grounds of appeal. proceedings be considered for adjudication of the grounds of appeal. proceedings be considered for adjudication of the grounds of appeal. Ground No. 2: a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering of the the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering of the the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not considering of the first proviso r.w. second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) wherein it is provided that first proviso r.w. second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) wherein it is provided tha first proviso r.w. second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) wherein it is provided tha 'where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of 'where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of 'where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not same, the stamp duty immovable property and the date of registration are not same, the stamp duty immovable property and the date of registration are not same, the stamp duty valuation of date of allotment i.e. 03.11.2007 valuation of date of allotment i.e. 03.11.2007 may be taken for this purpose. may be taken for this purpose. b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that d in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that d in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the action the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the action the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing of making addition of Rs.68,58,000/- made u/s. of the Learned Assessing of making addition of Rs.68,58,000/ of the Learned Assessing of making addition of Rs.68,58,000/ 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant submits that the stamp duty value of Rs. 22,67,000/- as at The Appellant submits that the stamp duty value of Rs. 22,67,000/ The Appellant submits that the stamp duty value of Rs. 22,67,000/ 03.11.2007 be considered and that the addition of Rs. 68,58,000/- made u/s 03.11.2007 be considered and that the addition of Rs. 68,58,000/ 03.11.2007 be considered and that the addition of Rs. 68,58,000/ 56(2)(x) be deleted. Ground No. 3: Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal raised, and on the facts and in Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal raised, and on the f Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal raised, and on the f the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in relying upon and placing reliance on the Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in relying upon and placing reliance on the Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in relying upon and placing reliance on the judicial precedents namely CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR precedents namely CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR precedents namely CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR 324 (SC) and CIT vs. N. Bhagirath (2009) 312 ITR 81 (SC), in the impugned vs. N. Bhagirath (2009) 312 ITR 81 (SC), in the impugned vs. N. Bhagirath (2009) 312 ITR 81 (SC), in the impugned appellate order which are neither traceable nor available in the public domain nor appellate order which are neither traceable nor available in the public domain nor appellate order which are neither traceable nor available in the public domain nor confronted to the Appellant. confronted to the Appellant. The Appellant submits that the case laws relied upon not to be considered. The Appellant submits that the case laws relied upon not to be considered. The Appellant submits that the case laws relied upon not to be considered.

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 3 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

Ground No. 4: The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to annul any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers as may be necessary.” produce such further evidence, documents and papers as may be necessary. produce such further evidence, documents and papers as may be necessary. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 31.08.2018 declaring a assessment year under consideration on 31.08.2018 declaring a assessment year under consideration on 31.08.2018 declaring a total income of ₹7,08,600/ 7,08,600/-. The return was selected for scrutiny . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment on account of a mismatch between the stamp duty sessment on account of a mismatch between the stamp duty sessment on account of a mismatch between the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration in respect of an immovable valuation and the stated consideration in respect of an immovable valuation and the stated consideration in respect of an immovable property transaction. Pursuant thereto, statutory notices under the property transaction. Pursuant thereto, statutory notices under the property transaction. Pursuant thereto, statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. issued and duly served upon the assessee. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a residential flat Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a residential flat Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a residential flat bearing No. 422 in Bhawani Plaza, Dadar, Mumbai, for a bearing No. 422 in Bhawani Plaza, Dadar, Mumbai, for a bearing No. 422 in Bhawani Plaza, Dadar, Mumbai, for a consideration of ₹22,70,000/ 22,70,000/-, whereas the stamp duty authority , whereas the stamp duty authority had adopted the value of the said property at had adopted the value of the said property at ₹91,28,000/ 91,28,000/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as Assessing Officer, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as Assessing Officer, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of to why the differential amount of ₹68,58,000/-, representing the , representing the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration etween the stamp duty value and the consideration etween the stamp duty value and the consideration disclosed in the registered agreement, should not be brought to tax disclosed in the registered agreement, should not be brought to tax disclosed in the registered agreement, should not be brought to tax under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act.

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 4 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

2.2 In response, the assessee submitted that the subject flat had In response, the assessee submitted that the subject flat had In response, the assessee submitted that the subject flat had originally been booked with the builder at the under-construction originally been booked with the builder at the under originally been booked with the builder at the under stage on 03.11.2007 upon payment of a booking amount of stage on 03.11.2007 upon payment of a booking amount of stage on 03.11.2007 upon payment of a booking amount of ₹1,00,000/-, and that the agreed consideration at the time of , and that the agreed consideration at the time of , and that the agreed consideration at the time of allotment was ₹15,00,000/ 15,00,000/-. It was further explained that owing to . It was further explained that owing to disputes between the builder and various allottees, the project disputes between the builder and various allottees, the project disputes between the builder and various allottees, the project remained stalled for a considerable period and construction could remained stalled for a considerable period and construction could remained stalled for a considerable period and construction could not commence as envisaged. According to the assessee, after not commence as envisaged. According to the assessee, after not commence as envisaged. According to the assessee, after resolution of the disputes and subsequent negotiations with the n of the disputes and subsequent negotiations with the n of the disputes and subsequent negotiations with the builder, the consideration was revised to ₹22,70,000/ builder, the consideration was revised to 22,70,000/-, whereupon a formal Agreement for Sale came to be executed and registered on a formal Agreement for Sale came to be executed and registered on a formal Agreement for Sale came to be executed and registered on 16.11.2017. 2.3 The Assessing Officer, however, was not persuaded by The Assessing Officer, however, was not persuaded by The Assessing Officer, however, was not persuaded by the explanation furnished. Holding that the assessee had failed to explanation furnished. Holding that the assessee had failed to explanation furnished. Holding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim with satisfactory evidence so as to attract the substantiate the claim with satisfactory evidence so as to attract the substantiate the claim with satisfactory evidence so as to attract the benefit of the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b), he proceeded to treat benefit of the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b), he proceeded to treat benefit of the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b), he proceeded to treat the difference of ₹68,58,000/ 68,58,000/- as income chargeable to tax under ble to tax under the aforesaid provision and made the corresponding addition. the aforesaid provision and made the corresponding addition. the aforesaid provision and made the corresponding addition. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, affirmed the action of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, affirmed the action of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer primarily on the grou the Assessing Officer primarily on the ground that the assessee had nd that the assessee had failed to furnish credible evidence demonstrating payment of failed to furnish credible evidence demonstrating payment of failed to furnish credible evidence demonstrating payment of consideration on 03.11.2007 so as to qualify for the benefit consideration on 03.11.2007 so as to qualify for the benefit consideration on 03.11.2007 so as to qualify for the benefit

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 5 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

envisaged under the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The envisaged under the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The envisaged under the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The relevant findings recorded by the learned relevant findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) are reproduced CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder:

“Decision: As per form no. 35 assessee has not submitted any additional evidences other As per form no. 35 assessee has not submitted any additional evidences other As per form no. 35 assessee has not submitted any additional evidences other than what he is submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. than what he is submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. than what he is submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee has submitted no evidences as a proof of making the payment on Assessee has submitted no evidences as a proof of making the Assessee has submitted no evidences as a proof of making the 03.11.2007. Further, assessee has not submitted any 03.11.2007. Further, assessee has not submitted any registered agreement to registered agreement to support his claim that he has put the Flat on 03.11.2007. The self claim in support his claim that he has put the Flat on 03.11.2007. The self claim in support his claim that he has put the Flat on 03.11.2007. The self claim in absence of any document cannot be accepted on face value without any absence of any document cannot be accepted on face value without any absence of any document cannot be accepted on face value without any supporting document. supporting document. The assessee, in the present case, has failed to submit any documentary assessee, in the present case, has failed to submit any documentary assessee, in the present case, has failed to submit any documentary evidence beyond what was produced during the course of the assessment evidence beyond what was produced during the course of the assessment evidence beyond what was produced during the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim of payment made on 03.11.2007 towards proceedings to substantiate the claim of payment made on 03.11.2007 towards proceedings to substantiate the claim of payment made on 03.11.2007 towards the allotment of the flat. Crucially, no the allotment of the flat. Crucially, no registered sale agreement has been registered sale agreement has been furnished to support the assertion that the flat was put on the said date. The self- furnished to support the assertion that the flat was put on the said date. The self furnished to support the assertion that the flat was put on the said date. The self serving statements of the assessee, in the absence of cogent and documentary serving statements of the assessee, in the absence of cogent and documentary serving statements of the assessee, in the absence of cogent and documentary corroboration, cannot be accepted at face value, as has been consistently held by corroboration, cannot be accepted at face value, as has been corroboration, cannot be accepted at face value, as has been the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions including CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions including CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions including CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR 324 (SC), wherein the Court emphasized that the burden of Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR 324 (SC), wherein the Court emphasized that the burden of Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR 324 (SC), wherein the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the facts by credible evidence and mere proof lies on the assessee to establish the facts by credible evidence and m proof lies on the assessee to establish the facts by credible evidence and m oral assertions or self oral assertions or self-created evidence must be viewed with caution. created evidence must be viewed with caution. Furthermore, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act is justified Furthermore, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act is justified Furthermore, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act is justified where the stamp duty valuation is higher than the declared consideration, and where the stamp duty valuation is higher than the declared consideration, and where the stamp duty valuation is higher than the declared consideration, and the provisos thereto require the consideration to be established by valid payment require the consideration to be established by valid payment evidence and date of agreement suitably substantiated. The proviso mandates evidence and date of agreement suitably substantiated. The proviso mandates evidence and date of agreement suitably substantiated. The proviso mandates that if the agreement fixing the consideration and its registration date do not that if the agreement fixing the consideration and its registration date do not that if the agreement fixing the consideration and its registration date do not coincide, the valuation as at the agre coincide, the valuation as at the agreement date is to be considered, provided ement date is to be considered, provided that part or full consideration has been paid by an account-payee cheque. The that part or full consideration has been paid by an account that part or full consideration has been paid by an account assessee's inability to furnish a registered agreement dated 03.11.2007 or assessee's inability to furnish a registered agreement dated 03.11.2007 or assessee's inability to furnish a registered agreement dated 03.11.2007 or evidence of payment on the said date disentitles the assessee from claiming evidence of payment on the said date disentitles the assessee evidence of payment on the said date disentitles the assessee protection under the provisos, as held in precedent rulings such as CIT vs. N. protection under the provisos, as held in precedent rulings such as CIT vs. N. protection under the provisos, as held in precedent rulings such as CIT vs. N. Bhagirath (2009) 312 ITR 81 (SC). Bhagirath (2009) 312 ITR 81 (SC). Therefore, on the basis of material on record and in the absence of any credible Therefore, on the basis of material on record and in the absence of any credible Therefore, on the basis of material on record and in the absence of any credible evidence to support the claim of payment or exis evidence to support the claim of payment or existence of agreement on tence of agreement on 03.11.2007, the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the claim and made the 03.11.2007, the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the claim and made the 03.11.2007, the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the claim and made the addition as required under Section 56(2)(x) read with the relevant provisos. The addition as required under Section 56(2)(x) read with the relevant provisos. The addition as required under Section 56(2)(x) read with the relevant provisos. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the addition confirmed. appeal is accordingly dismissed and the addition confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. missed.”

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 6 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 7 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

containing the bank passbook evidencing clearance of the cheque containing the bank passbook evidencing clearance of the cheque containing the bank passbook evidencing clearance of the cheque amount of ₹1,00,000/ 1,00,000/- on 06.11.2007, and page 64 containing t on 06.11.2007, and page 64 containing the receipt issued by the builder acknowledging receipt of the booking receipt issued by the builder acknowledging receipt of the booking receipt issued by the builder acknowledging receipt of the booking amount. It was submitted that these contemporaneous documents amount. It was submitted that these contemporaneous documents amount. It was submitted that these contemporaneous documents unequivocally establish the existence of an agreement and payment unequivocally establish the existence of an agreement and payment unequivocally establish the existence of an agreement and payment through banking channels in the year 2007 itself. through banking channels in the year 2007 itself. 4.3 The learned counsel further submitted that the project learned counsel further submitted that the project learned counsel further submitted that the project remained substantially delayed owing to disputes involving the remained substantially delayed owing to disputes involving the remained substantially delayed owing to disputes involving the builder and, thereafter, due to the unfortunate demise of the builder and, thereafter, due to the unfortunate demise of the builder and, thereafter, due to the unfortunate demise of the original developer. Subsequently, the legal heir of the builder, Shri original developer. Subsequently, the legal heir of the builder, Shri original developer. Subsequently, the legal heir of the builder, Shri Pankaj Nanji Gada, resumed the project and executed the ji Gada, resumed the project and executed the ji Gada, resumed the project and executed the Agreement for Sale dated 16.11.2017 in respect of the very same Agreement for Sale dated 16.11.2017 in respect of the very same Agreement for Sale dated 16.11.2017 in respect of the very same flat which had originally been allotted to the assessee on flat which had originally been allotted to the assessee on flat which had originally been allotted to the assessee on 03.11.2007. It was further pointed out that the amount of 03.11.2007. It was further pointed out that the amount of 03.11.2007. It was further pointed out that the amount of ₹1,00,000/- paid at the time paid at the time of allotment was duly recognized and of allotment was duly recognized and adjusted while finalizing the transaction in the year 2017. adjusted while finalizing the transaction in the year 2017. adjusted while finalizing the transaction in the year 2017. According to the learned counsel, these facts clearly demonstrate According to the learned counsel, these facts clearly demonstrate According to the learned counsel, these facts clearly demonstrate that the transaction originated in the year 2007 and, therefore, the that the transaction originated in the year 2007 and, therefore, the that the transaction originated in the year 2007 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to assessee is entitled to the statutory benefit available under the the statutory benefit available under the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 4.4 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was contended that the upon the orders of the authorities below. It was contended that the upon the orders of the authorities below. It was contended that the assessee had failed to substantiate her claim before the learned assessee had failed to substantiate her claim before the learned assessee had failed to substantiate her claim before the learned

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 8 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

CIT(A) by producing the requisite documentary evidence and, CIT(A) by producing the requisite documentary evidence and, CIT(A) by producing the requisite documentary evidence and, therefore, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the claim efore, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the claim efore, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the claim and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the documentary evidence material available on record, including the documentary evidenc material available on record, including the documentary evidenc placed before us in the paper book. The controversy involved in the placed before us in the paper book. The controversy involved in the placed before us in the paper book. The controversy involved in the present appeal lies within a narrow compass, namely, whether the present appeal lies within a narrow compass, namely, whether the present appeal lies within a narrow compass, namely, whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first and second provisos to assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first and second provisos to assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently and consequently whether the addition of ₹68,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer whether the addition of made by the Assessing Officer can be sustained. 5.1 The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, proceeded on The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, proceeded on The learned CIT(A), while affirming the addition, proceeded on the premise that the assessee had failed to furnish any the premise that the assessee had failed to furnish any the premise that the assessee had failed to furnish any ing either the existence of an documentary evidence demonstrat documentary evidence demonstrating either the existence of an agreement dated 03.11.2007 or payment of consideration on or agreement dated 03.11.2007 or payment of consideration on or agreement dated 03.11.2007 or payment of consideration on or before the said date. The appellate authority thus concluded that before the said date. The appellate authority thus concluded that before the said date. The appellate authority thus concluded that the assessee was not entitled to invoke the benefit contemplated the assessee was not entitled to invoke the benefit contemplated the assessee was not entitled to invoke the benefit contemplated under the provisos to section 56( under the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 5.2 Before us, however, the assessee has drawn our attention to Before us, however, the assessee has drawn our attention to Before us, however, the assessee has drawn our attention to Acknowledgement Acknowledgement Acknowledgement Receipt Receipt Receipt No. No. No. 338919011160725 338919011160725 338919011160725 dated dated dated 16.07.2025, placed at page 4 of the paper book, evidencing the 16.07.2025, placed at page 4 of the paper book, evidencing the 16.07.2025, placed at page 4 of the paper book, evidencing the filing of relevant documents before the learned CIT(A). The assessee filing of relevant documents before the learned CIT(A). Th filing of relevant documents before the learned CIT(A). Th has further placed on record copies of the allotment letter dated has further placed on record copies of the allotment letter dated has further placed on record copies of the allotment letter dated

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 9 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

03.11.2007, the registered agreement for sale dated 16.11.2017, 03.11.2007, the registered agreement for sale dated 16.11.2017, 03.11.2007, the registered agreement for sale dated 16.11.2017, bank passbook extracts evidencing payment through banking bank passbook extracts evidencing payment through banking bank passbook extracts evidencing payment through banking channels, receipt issued by the builder acknowledging receipt of the channels, receipt issued by the builder acknowledging rec channels, receipt issued by the builder acknowledging rec booking amount, and a valuation report pertaining to the property booking amount, and a valuation report pertaining to the property booking amount, and a valuation report pertaining to the property as on 03.11.2007. 5.3 Upon examination of the aforesaid documents, we find prima Upon examination of the aforesaid documents, we find prima Upon examination of the aforesaid documents, we find prima facie merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. facie merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. facie merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. The allotment letter dated 03.1 The allotment letter dated 03.11.2007 indicates that the subject flat 1.2007 indicates that the subject flat was allotted to the assessee on the said date. The bank passbook was allotted to the assessee on the said date. The bank passbook was allotted to the assessee on the said date. The bank passbook reflects clearance of ₹1,00,000/- through account payee cheque reflects clearance of through account payee cheque shortly thereafter, and the corresponding receipt issued by the shortly thereafter, and the corresponding receipt issued by the shortly thereafter, and the corresponding receipt issued by the builder corroborates rece builder corroborates receipt of the said amount towards booking of ipt of the said amount towards booking of the flat. These documents, read conjointly, lend substantial support the flat. These documents, read conjointly, lend substantial support the flat. These documents, read conjointly, lend substantial support to the assessee’s claim that the transaction had its genesis in the to the assessee’s claim that the transaction had its genesis in the to the assessee’s claim that the transaction had its genesis in the year 2007 and that part consideration had been paid through year 2007 and that part consideration had been paid through year 2007 and that part consideration had been paid through banking channels at the time of allotment itself. at the time of allotment itself. 5.4 The first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) recognizes the The first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) recognizes the The first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) recognizes the distinction between the date of agreement fixing the consideration distinction between the date of agreement fixing the consideration distinction between the date of agreement fixing the consideration and the date of registration of the property. The second proviso and the date of registration of the property. The second proviso and the date of registration of the property. The second proviso further provides that where any further provides that where any part of the consideration has been part of the consideration has been payee bank draft or paid by an account paid by an account-payee cheque, account-payee bank draft or through prescribed banking channels on or before the date of the through prescribed banking channels on or before the date of the through prescribed banking channels on or before the date of the agreement, the stamp duty value as on the date of such agreement agreement, the stamp duty value as on the date of such agreement agreement, the stamp duty value as on the date of such agreement

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 10 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

may be adopted for the purpos may be adopted for the purposes of the said provision. The es of the said provision. The legislative intent underlying these provisos is to protect genuine legislative intent underlying these provisos is to protect genuine legislative intent underlying these provisos is to protect genuine transactions from being subjected to unintended tax consequences transactions from being subjected to unintended tax consequences transactions from being subjected to unintended tax consequences merely because registration of the property occurs at a substantially merely because registration of the property occurs at a substantially merely because registration of the property occurs at a substantially later point of time. 5.6 In the present case, the material placed before us prima facie In the present case, the material placed before us prima facie In the present case, the material placed before us prima facie demonstrates that the assessee had paid an amount of ₹1,00,000/- demonstrates that the assessee had paid an amount of demonstrates that the assessee had paid an amount of through an account through an account-payee cheque contemporaneously with the payee cheque contemporaneously with the allotment of the flat on 03.11.2007. Consequently, the assessee allotment of the flat on 03.11.2007. Consequently, the assessee allotment of the flat on 03.11.2007. Consequently, the assessee appears to satisfy the foundational requirement for claiming the ars to satisfy the foundational requirement for claiming the ars to satisfy the foundational requirement for claiming the benefit of the aforesaid provisos. The findings recorded by the benefit of the aforesaid provisos. The findings recorded by the benefit of the aforesaid provisos. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) that no documentary evidence whatsoever was learned CIT(A) that no documentary evidence whatsoever was learned CIT(A) that no documentary evidence whatsoever was furnished by the assessee do not appear to be borne out from the furnished by the assessee do not appear to be borne out from the furnished by the assessee do not appear to be borne out from the record placed before us. placed before us. 5.7 At the same time, we notice that although the assessee has At the same time, we notice that although the assessee has At the same time, we notice that although the assessee has produced material evidencing allotment of the flat and payment of produced material evidencing allotment of the flat and payment of produced material evidencing allotment of the flat and payment of part consideration through banking channels in the year 2007, no part consideration through banking channels in the year 2007, no part consideration through banking channels in the year 2007, no conclusive finding has been recorded regardi conclusive finding has been recorded regarding the stamp duty ng the stamp duty valuation of the property as on the date of allotment, i.e., valuation of the property as on the date of allotment, i.e., valuation of the property as on the date of allotment, i.e., 03.11.2007. Determination of such valuation assumes significance 03.11.2007. Determination of such valuation assumes significance 03.11.2007. Determination of such valuation assumes significance because the ultimate applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b) would because the ultimate applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b) would because the ultimate applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b) would depend upon a comparison between the consideration agreed upon depend upon a comparison between the considerati depend upon a comparison between the considerati

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 11 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

and the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of the and the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of the and the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of the agreement/allotment. agreement/allotment. 5.8 Since this factual aspect has neither been properly examined Since this factual aspect has neither been properly examined Since this factual aspect has neither been properly examined by the authorities below nor adjudicated upon in light of the by the authorities below nor adjudicated upon in light of the by the authorities below nor adjudicated upon in light of the documentary evidence now placed on rec documentary evidence now placed on record, we are of the ord, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for served by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for served by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the limited purpose of verification of the stamp duty valuation as on the limited purpose of verification of the stamp duty valuation as on the limited purpose of verification of the stamp duty valuation as on 03.11.2007 and examination of the 03.11.2007 and examination of the assessee’s claim under the first assessee’s claim under the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. and second provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act.

5.9 We accordingly set aside the impugned order on this issue and We accordingly set aside the impugned order on this issue and We accordingly set aside the impugned order on this issue and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), who shall verify the remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), who shall verify the remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), who shall verify the essee, ascertain the stamp duty value evidences produced by the ass evidences produced by the assessee, ascertain the stamp duty value of the property as on 03.11.2007, and thereafter adjudicate the of the property as on 03.11.2007, and thereafter adjudicate the of the property as on 03.11.2007, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state, adequate issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state, adequate issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state, adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to both the assessee and opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to both the assessee and opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer, and all contentions available in law shall and all contentions available in law shall remain open.

5.10 The grounds raised by the assessee are, therefore, allowed for The grounds raised by the assessee are, therefore, allowed for The grounds raised by the assessee are, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

Kalpana Chandrakant Shah Kalpana Chandrakant Shah 12 ITA No. 9054/MUM/2025

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 09/06/2026. /2026.

Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 09/06/2026 Kunal Kr, P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER,

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