MANITI JAYESH SHAH,SAARTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(2)(4), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

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

ITA No. 287/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Maniti Jayesh Shah, Income Tax Officer, 2001, Saarthi, Ward – 19(2)(4), Vs. 33 KM Munshi Marg, Piramal Chamber, Chowpatty, Mumbai – 400007, Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN NO. BYQPS6315H Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan, (SR.-DR.)

Date of Hearing : 20/04/2026 : 11/05/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT (A)’], for Assessment Year [in short ‘the A.Y.’] 2018-19, raising following grounds:

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 2 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

“1. (a) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter ‘CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of AO in making Centre, Delhi (hereinafter ‘CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of AO in making Centre, Delhi (hereinafter ‘CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 98,86,100/ addition of Rs. 98,86,100/- (i.e. Rs. 1,70,76,100 – Rs. 71,90,000) Rs. 71,90,000) u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act considering th the I.T. Act considering the same as excess of stamp value of immovable property e same as excess of stamp value of immovable property over the purchase consideration. over the purchase consideration. The Appellant submit that she has purchased the property in F.Y. 2010 The Appellant submit that she has purchased the property in F.Y. 2010 The Appellant submit that she has purchased the property in F.Y. 2010-11 vide allotment letter dt. 10.04.2010 and in view of proviso to Section 56(2)(x) no vide allotment letter dt. 10.04.2010 and in view of proviso to Section 56(2)( vide allotment letter dt. 10.04.2010 and in view of proviso to Section 56(2)( addition is called for in the case of the Appellant. addition is called for in the case of the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in assessing the gain from sale (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in assessing the gain from sale (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in assessing the gain from sale of office premises as Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,23,900/- (considering cost of office premises as Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,23,900/ of office premises as Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,23,900/ of acquisition without indexat of acquisition without indexation) as against Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. ion) as against Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 62,99,032/- (considering cost of acquisition after indexation) declared by the (considering cost of acquisition after indexation) declared by the (considering cost of acquisition after indexation) declared by the Appellant. The Appellant submit that office premises was purchased in F.Y. 2010 The Appellant submit that office premises was purchased in F.Y. 2010 The Appellant submit that office premises was purchased in F.Y. 2010-11 which was held for a period of more than 36 mo which was held for a period of more than 36 months and hence the AO ought to nths and hence the AO ought to have assessed the gain on sale of office premises as Long Term Capital Gain have assessed the gain on sale of office premises as Long Term Capital Gain have assessed the gain on sale of office premises as Long Term Capital Gain considering the cost of acquisition after indexation. considering the cost of acquisition after indexation. (c) The CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without admitting additional (c) The CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without admitting additional (c) The CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without admitting additional evidences filed by the Appellant i.e. Allotment letter issued by Shree Naman by the Appellant i.e. Allotment letter issued by Shree Naman by the Appellant i.e. Allotment letter issued by Shree Naman Developers Limited and Appellant’s bank statement for F.Y. 2010-11 and 2012- Developers Limited and Appellant’s bank statement for F.Y. 2010 Developers Limited and Appellant’s bank statement for F.Y. 2010 13. The Appellant submits that all the facts of the case of Appellant are The Appellant submits that all the facts of the case of Appellant are The Appellant submits that all the facts of the case of Appellant are already on record before the AO and CIT(A) already on record before the AO and CIT(A) and additional evidences filed by the and additional evidences filed by the Appellant are vital and goes to the root of the issue under consideration, and Appellant are vital and goes to the root of the issue under consideration, and Appellant are vital and goes to the root of the issue under consideration, and hence on the facts and circumstances of the case of Appellant and in law and in hence on the facts and circumstances of the case of Appellant and in law and in hence on the facts and circumstances of the case of Appellant and in law and in the interest of justice, the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the interest of justice, the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidences the additional evidences filed by Appellant for deciding the appeal. filed by Appellant for deciding the appeal.

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 3 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

immovable property during the relevant previous year. On perusal immovable property during the relevant previous year. immovable property during the relevant previous year. of the purchase deed and sale deed placed on record, it was of the purchase deed and sale deed placed on record, it was of the purchase deed and sale deed placed on record, it was observed that the assessee had purchased an office premises from observed that the assessee had purchased an office premises from observed that the assessee had purchased an office premises from M/s Shree Naman Developers Limited for a consideration of M/s Shree Naman Developers Limited for a consideration of M/s Shree Naman Developers Limited for a consideration of Rs.71,90,000/-, which transaction was registered on 11.08.2017, , which transaction was registered on 11.08.2017, , which transaction was registered on 11.08.2017, whereas the stamp duty valuation of the said property stood at whereas the stamp duty valuation of the said property stood at whereas the stamp duty valuation of the said property stood at Rs.1,70,76,100/-. The property was thereafter sold on 13.10.2017 . The property was thereafter sold on 13.10.2017 . The property was thereafter sold on 13.10.2017 for a consideration of Rs.1,72,00,000/ for a consideration of Rs.1,72,00,000/-. The assessee in the retur The assessee in the return of income declared long long-term capital gain of Rs. 62,99,032/ term capital gain of Rs. 62,99,032/-, which was worked out as under was worked out as under;

Full value consideration in respect of assets Full value consideration in respect of assets Rs. 1,72,00,000/- Rs. 1,72,00,000/ other than quoted shares other than quoted shares Deduction u/s 48 Cost of acquisition without indexation Cost of acquisition without indexation Rs. 1,00,47,143/ 1,00,47,143/- Cost of improvement without indexation Cost of improvement without indexation Rs. 8,53,825/- Rs. 8,53,825/ Total Rs. 1,09,00,968/- Rs. 1,09,00,968/ Long term capital gain on assets Long term capital gain on assets Rs. 62,99,032/- Rs. 62,99,032/

2.1 The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish complete documentary evidence in support of the claim of cost of complete documentary evidence in support of the claim of cost of complete documentary evidence in support of the claim of cost of acquisition, including bank statements evidencing payment of acquisition, including bank statements evidencing payment of acquisition, including bank statements evidencing payment of Rs.71,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed that, since the . The Assessing Officer observed that, since the . The Assessing Officer observed that, since the registered purchase deed was executed on 11.08.2017 and the d purchase deed was executed on 11.08.2017 and the d purchase deed was executed on 11.08.2017 and the property was sold on 13.10.2017, the apparent holding period was property was sold on 13.10.2017, the apparent holding period was property was sold on 13.10.2017, the apparent holding period was barely three months. According to the Assessing Officer, no barely three months. According to the Assessing Officer, no barely three months. According to the Assessing Officer, no supporting material was produced during assessment proceedings supporting material was produced during assessment proceedings supporting material was produced during assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim that the asset had, in fact, been acquired he claim that the asset had, in fact, been acquired he claim that the asset had, in fact, been acquired

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 4 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

in Financial Year 2010 in Financial Year 2010-11 so as to qualify for treatment as a long 11 so as to qualify for treatment as a long- term capital asset. Consequently, the Assessing Officer formed the Consequently, the Assessing Officer formed the Consequently, the Assessing Officer formed the view that the purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee at view that the purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee at view that the purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee at Rs.71,90,000/- was substantially lower than the stamp duty was substantially lower than the stamp duty was substantially lower than the stamp duty valuation of Rs.1,70,76,100/ valuation of Rs.1,70,76,100/-, resulting in a differential amount of , resulting in a differential amount of Rs.98,86,100/-, which was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(x) of , which was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(x) of , which was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

2.2 Further, the Assessing Officer treated the difference between Further, the Assessing Officer treated the difference between Further, the Assessing Officer treated the difference between the sale consideration of Rs.1,72,00,000/ the sale consideration of Rs.1,72,00,000/- and the stamp duty and the stamp duty value adopted on the date of purchase, i.e., Rs.1,70,76,100/-, value adopted on the date of purchase, i.e., Rs.1,70,76,100/ value adopted on the date of purchase, i.e., Rs.1,70,76,100/ amounting to Rs.1,23,900/ amounting to Rs.1,23,900/-, as Short-Term Capital Gain by Term Capital Gain by adopting the stamp duty value as the cost of acquisition. e stamp duty value as the cost of acquisition. e stamp duty value as the cost of acquisition.

2.3 Thereafter, a draft assessment order was issued to the Thereafter, a draft assessment order was issued to the Thereafter, a draft assessment order was issued to the assessee. However, in the absence of any further response from the assessee. However, in the absence of any further response from the assessee. However, in the absence of any further response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment vide order d assessment vide order dated 09.04.2021 by making the additions ated 09.04.2021 by making the additions proposed in the show proposed in the show-cause notice.

2.4 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate uring the appellate proceedings, the assessee the assessee furnished by way of additiona furnished by way of additional evidence,

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 5 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 along with relevant bank the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 along with relevant bank the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 along with relevant bank statements in support of the contention that the property had, in statements in support of the contention that the property had, in statements in support of the contention that the property had, in fact, been acquired in Financial Year 2010 fact, been acquired in Financial Year 2010-11 and, consequently, 11 and, consequently, the gain arising on its transfer was liable to be the gain arising on its transfer was liable to be assessed as Long assessed as Long- Term Capital Gain.

2.5 Thus, the primary controversy pertains to the addition of Thus, the primary controversy pertains to the addition of Thus, the primary controversy pertains to the addition of ₹98,86,100/-, representing the differential between the Stamp Duty , representing the differential between the Stamp Duty , representing the differential between the Stamp Duty Value (SDV) of ₹1,70,76,100/ 1,70,76,100/- and the declared consideration of and the declared consideration of ₹71,90,000/-. The assessee seeks the protection of the provisos to . The assessee seeks the protection of the provisos to . The assessee seeks the protection of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), contending that the purchase price was , contending that the purchase price was crystallized via an allotment letter dated crystallized via an allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 10.04.2010, and payments were initiated therein were initiated therein.

2.6 The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid ev The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid ev The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid evidences to the Assessing Officer for examination and comments in remand Assessing Officer for examination and comments in remand Assessing Officer for examination and comments in remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer, while objecting to the proceedings. The Assessing Officer, while objecting to the proceedings. The Assessing Officer, while objecting to the admissibility of the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the admissibility of the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the admissibility of the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, nevertheless proceeded to furnish his tax Rules, 1962, nevertheless proceeded to furnish his tax Rules, 1962, nevertheless proceeded to furnish his comments on the merits of the claim advanced by the assessee. A comments on the merits of the claim advanced by the assessee. A comments on the merits of the claim advanced by the assessee. A copy of the remand report was thereafter supplied to the assessee, copy of the remand report was thereafter supplied to the assessee, copy of the remand report was thereafter supplied to the assessee, who, in turn, filed a rejoinder rebutting the observations of the who, in turn, filed a rejoinder rebutting the observations of the who, in turn, filed a rejoinder rebutting the observations of the Assessing Officer.

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 6 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

2.7 Upon consideration of the assessme Upon consideration of the assessment order, the remand nt order, the remand report, the submissions of the assessee, and the rejoinder filed report, the submissions of the assessee, and the rejoinder filed report, the submissions of the assessee, and the rejoinder filed thereto, the Ld. CIT(A), inter alia, observed thereto, the Ld. CIT(A), inter alia, observed, firstly firstly, that the transaction in question was not at arm’s length, inasmuch as the transaction in question was not at arm’s length, inasmuch as the transaction in question was not at arm’s length, inasmuch as the assessee herself was associated with entities belonging to the assessee herself was associated with entities belonging to the assessee herself was associated with entities belonging to the Naman Group and her father was a Director in M/s Shree Naman Naman Group and her father was a Director in M/s Shree Naman Naman Group and her father was a Director in M/s Shree Naman Developers Ltd., the seller of the property. Developers Ltd., the seller of the property. The transacti The transaction is essentially an inter-se arrangement between related parties, lacking se arrangement between related parties, lacking se arrangement between related parties, lacking the the hallmarks hallmarks of of an an independent, independent, third third-party party commercial commercial transaction.

2.8 The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the allotment letter dated The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the allotment letter dated The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 could not be regarded as a relia 10.04.2010 could not be regarded as a reliable contemporaneous ble contemporaneous document, particularly in view of the discrepancy relating to the document, particularly in view of the discrepancy relating to the document, particularly in view of the discrepancy relating to the alleged payment of Rs.10,00,000/ alleged payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, which, according to the , which, according to the assessee, had initially been tendered by cheque on 09.04.2010 but assessee, had initially been tendered by cheque on 09.04.2010 but assessee, had initially been tendered by cheque on 09.04.2010 but was ultimately realized only on 05.08.2010. was ultimately realized only on 05.08.2010.

2.9 The appellate authority noted that no independent evidence, The appellate authority noted that no independent evidence, The appellate authority noted that no independent evidence, such such such as as as cheque cheque cheque return return return memos memos memos or or or contemporaneous contemporaneous contemporaneous correspondence, correspondence, correspondence, had had had been been been furnished furnished furnished to to to substantiate substantiate substantiate the the the explanation offered by the assessee. explanation offered by the assessee.

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 7 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

2.10 The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded a finding that The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded a finding that The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded a finding that the allotment letter itself recited receipt of payment as on 10.04.2010, whereas letter itself recited receipt of payment as on 10.04.2010, whereas letter itself recited receipt of payment as on 10.04.2010, whereas the verifiable banking transaction had taken place several months the verifiable banking transaction had taken place several months the verifiable banking transaction had taken place several months thereafter, thereby lending credence to the inference drawn by the thereafter, thereby lending credence to the inference drawn by the thereafter, thereby lending credence to the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the allotment lett Assessing Officer that the allotment letter was subsequently created er was subsequently created or backdated to confer an artificial antiquity upon the transaction. or backdated to confer an artificial antiquity upon the transaction. or backdated to confer an artificial antiquity upon the transaction.

2.11 It was also observed that the bank statements relied upon by It was also observed that the bank statements relied upon by It was also observed that the bank statements relied upon by the assessee reflected multiple inter se transactions with various the assessee reflected multiple inter se transactions with various the assessee reflected multiple inter se transactions with various Naman Group entities, rendering it difficult to independently Group entities, rendering it difficult to independently Group entities, rendering it difficult to independently correlate the payments with the alleged acquisition of the property. correlate the payments with the alleged acquisition of the property. correlate the payments with the alleged acquisition of the property.

2.12 The The The Ld. Ld. Ld. CIT(A) CIT(A) CIT(A) further further further noted noted noted the the the absence absence absence of of of any any any contemporaneous documentary material, such as possession contemporaneous documentary material, such as possession contemporaneous documentary material, such as possession letters, construction ion-linked correspondence, or other evidences linked correspondence, or other evidences demonstrating vesting of rights in the property during Financial demonstrating vesting of rights in the property during Financial demonstrating vesting of rights in the property during Financial Years 2010-11 to 2012 11 to 2012-13.

2.13 Emphasizing that the registered conveyance deed had been Emphasizing that the registered conveyance deed had been Emphasizing that the registered conveyance deed had been executed only on 11.08.2017 and the property had thereafter been executed only on 11.08.2017 and the property had therea executed only on 11.08.2017 and the property had therea sold on 13.10.2017, the appellate authority concluded that the sold on 13.10.2017, the appellate authority concluded that the sold on 13.10.2017, the appellate authority concluded that the holding period was less than thirty holding period was less than thirty-six months and, therefore, the six months and, therefore, the

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 8 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

asset could not be regarded as a long asset could not be regarded as a long-term capital asset within the term capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(42A) of the Act. meaning of Section 2(42A) of the Act.

2.14 On the issue of addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the the issue of addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the the issue of addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x), since no satisfactory evidence had the provisos to Section 56(2)(x), since no satisfactory evidence had the provisos to Section 56(2)(x), since no satisfactory evidence had been brought on record to establish that any part of the been brought on record to establish that any part of the been brought on record to establish that any part of the consideration had actually been paid through banking channels on consideration had actually been paid through banking channels on consideration had actually been paid through banking channels on or before the date of the alleged allotment agreement. Accordingly, or before the date of the alleged allotment agreement. Accordingly, or before the date of the alleged allotment agreement. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.98,86,100/ the addition of Rs.98,86,100/- representing the differential between representing the differential between the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration was the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration sustained.

2.15 Similarly, while adjudicating the issue relating to the nature of Similarly, while adjudicating the issue relating to the nature of Similarly, while adjudicating the issue relating to the nature of capital gain, the Ld. CIT( capital gain, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee acquired legally A) held that the assessee acquired legally enforceable rights in the property only upon execution and enforceable rights in the property only upon execution and enforceable rights in the property only upon execution and registration of the conveyance deed dated 11.08.2017 and, registration of the conveyance deed dated 11.08.2017 and, registration of the conveyance deed dated 11.08.2017 and, therefore, the gain arising on sale of the property on 13.10.2017 therefore, the gain arising on sale of the property on 13.10.2017 therefore, the gain arising on sale of the property on 13.10.2017 was rightly assessed by the As was rightly assessed by the Assessing Officer as Short sessing Officer as Short-Term Capital Gain. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, reliance was placed Gain. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, reliance was placed Gain. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Balbir upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Maini [398 ITR 531] Singh Maini [398 ITR 531] and Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [365 ITR 389] Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [365 ITR 389]

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 9 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

2.16 The Ld. CIT(A), how The Ld. CIT(A), however, despite having considered the ever, despite having considered the additional evidences on merits during remand proceedings, declined additional evidences on merits during remand proceedings, declined additional evidences on merits during remand proceedings, declined to formally admit the same under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, to formally admit the same under Rule 46A of the Income to formally admit the same under Rule 46A of the Income 1962, observing that adequate opportunities had been afforded to 1962, observing that adequate opportunities had been afforded to 1962, observing that adequate opportunities had been afforded to the assessee during t the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and that he course of assessment proceedings and that no sufficient cause had been demonstrated for failure to produce no sufficient cause had been demonstrated for failure to produce no sufficient cause had been demonstrated for failure to produce such evidences before the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority such evidences before the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority such evidences before the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority further held that none of the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A further held that none of the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A further held that none of the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A sfied and, placing reliance upon the decisions in Goetze stood satisfied and, placing reliance upon the decisions in sfied and, placing reliance upon the decisions in (India) Ltd. v. CIT [284 ITR 323] (India) Ltd. v. CIT [284 ITR 323] and CIT v. Text Hundred India CIT v. Text Hundred India [239 CTR 263], refused admission of the additional evidence. refused admission of the additional evidence. refused admission of the additional evidence. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed.

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 10 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

to substantiate the material already placed before the Assessing to substantiate the material already placed before the Assessing to substantiate the material already placed before the Assessing Officer.

3.1 We have heard the rival submissions and We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material perused the material available on record. In our considered opinion, once the learned available on record. In our considered opinion, once the learned available on record. In our considered opinion, once the learned CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits after taking into CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits after taking into CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits after taking into consideration the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, consideration the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, consideration the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, such evidences must be deemed to ha such evidences must be deemed to have been admitted on record. ve been admitted on record. In that view of the matter, any separate observation declining or In that view of the matter, any separate observation declining or In that view of the matter, any separate observation declining or disapproving the admission of such evidence would be self- disapproving the admission of such evidence would be self disapproving the admission of such evidence would be self contradictory and legally unsustainable. Moreover, where the contradictory and legally unsustainable. Moreover, where the contradictory and legally unsustainable. Moreover, where the additional evidence is relevant and has a d additional evidence is relevant and has a direct bearing on the irect bearing on the adjudication of the controversy involved, the same deserves to be adjudication of the controversy involved, the same deserves to be adjudication of the controversy involved, the same deserves to be admitted in the interest of substantial justice so as to enable proper admitted in the interest of substantial justice so as to enable proper admitted in the interest of substantial justice so as to enable proper and effective adjudication of the dispute on merits. Accordingly, and effective adjudication of the dispute on merits. Accordingly, and effective adjudication of the dispute on merits. Accordingly, Ground No. 1(c) raised by the as Ground No. 1(c) raised by the assessee stands allowed. sessee stands allowed.

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 11 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

2010-11 vide allotment letter dated 10.04.2010. It was contended 11 vide allotment letter dated 10.04.2010. It was contended 11 vide allotment letter dated 10.04.2010. It was contended that that the the entire entire purchase purchase cons consideration ideration amounting amounting to to Rs.71,90,000/- had been paid through normal banking channels had been paid through normal banking channels had been paid through normal banking channels during Financial Years 2010 during Financial Years 2010-11 and 2012-13, comprising payment 13, comprising payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in Financial Year 2010 in Financial Year 2010-11 and Rs.61,90,000/ 11 and Rs.61,90,000/- in Financial Year 2012- -13. According to the learned counsel, though arned counsel, though the building was completed and the formal agreement for the building was completed and the formal agreement for the building was completed and the formal agreement for registration was executed on 11.08.2017, the acquisition of rights registration was executed on 11.08.2017, the acquisition of rights registration was executed on 11.08.2017, the acquisition of rights in the property had already taken place much earlier pursuant to in the property had already taken place much earlier pursuant to in the property had already taken place much earlier pursuant to the allotment letter issued in Financial Year the allotment letter issued in Financial Year 2010-11. It was further 11. It was further submitted that, while the registration authorities valued the submitted that, while the registration authorities valued the submitted that, while the registration authorities valued the property at Rs.1,70,76,100/ property at Rs.1,70,76,100/- for stamp duty purposes at the time of for stamp duty purposes at the time of execution of the registered agreement dated 11.08.2017, the execution of the registered agreement dated 11.08.2017, the execution of the registered agreement dated 11.08.2017, the transaction itself had originated and subs transaction itself had originated and substantially concluded long tantially concluded long prior thereto.

4.1 The learned counsel further contended that the provisions of The learned counsel further contended that the provisions of The learned counsel further contended that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were wholly inapplicable to the facts of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were wholly inapplicable to the facts of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case, since the said provision was inserted in the the present case, since the said provision was inserted in the the present case, since the said provision was inserted in the statute with effect from 01.04.2017, whereas the transaction for ct from 01.04.2017, whereas the transaction for ct from 01.04.2017, whereas the transaction for acquisition of the property had been entered into much prior to the acquisition of the property had been entered into much prior to the acquisition of the property had been entered into much prior to the said date. It was submitted that a transaction concluded prior to said date. It was submitted that a transaction concluded prior to said date. It was submitted that a transaction concluded prior to the introduction of the provision could not be retrospectively the introduction of the provision could not be retrospectively the introduction of the provision could not be retrospectively subjected to tax under section 56(2)(x). In support of the aforesaid o tax under section 56(2)(x). In support of the aforesaid o tax under section 56(2)(x). In support of the aforesaid

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 12 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

proposition, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the proposition, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the proposition, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Coordinate Coordinate Benches Benches in in Benudhar Benudhar Gokulanand Gokulanand Biswal Biswal [153 Taxmann.com 112], Smt. Kajari Banerjee vs. ITO Smt. Kajari Banerjee vs. ITO [174 Taxmann.com [174 Taxmann.com 1226], and DCIT vs. Romell Housing LLP Romell Housing LLP [168 Taxmann.com 536]. [168 Taxmann.com 536].

4.2 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel further submitted that even the provisions of section counsel further submitted that even the provisions of section counsel further submitted that even the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b), as they then stood, would not apply to the present 56(2)(vii)(b), as they then stood, would not apply to the present 56(2)(vii)(b), as they then stood, would not apply to the present case, since prior to the amendment brought about by the Finance the amendment brought about by the Finance the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from Assessment Year 2014-15, the said Act, 2013 with effect from Assessment Year 2014 Act, 2013 with effect from Assessment Year 2014 provision applied only to transactions involving receipt of provision applied only to transactions involving receipt of provision applied only to transactions involving receipt of immovable property without consideration and did not extend to immovable property without consideration and did not extend to immovable property without consideration and did not extend to transactions involving inade transactions involving inadequate consideration. It was submitted quate consideration. It was submitted that the amendment enlarging the scope of the provision to include that the amendment enlarging the scope of the provision to include that the amendment enlarging the scope of the provision to include inadequate consideration was prospective in operation, as held in inadequate consideration was prospective in operation, as held in inadequate consideration was prospective in operation, as held in Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO [203 TTJ 925] (Ranchi).

4.3 The learned counsel further The learned counsel further submitted, without prejudice, that submitted, without prejudice, that even assuming section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) to be applicable, the statutory even assuming section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) to be applicable, the statutory even assuming section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) to be applicable, the statutory framework itself recognizes that where the date of agreement fixing framework itself recognizes that where the date of agreement fixing framework itself recognizes that where the date of agreement fixing the consideration and the date of registration are different, the the consideration and the date of registration are different, the the consideration and the date of registration are different, the stamp duty valuation prevailing on the date of agreement is liable to on prevailing on the date of agreement is liable to on prevailing on the date of agreement is liable to be adopted, provided consideration or part thereof has been paid be adopted, provided consideration or part thereof has been paid be adopted, provided consideration or part thereof has been paid through account payee cheque, bank draft or electronic banking through account payee cheque, bank draft or electronic banking through account payee cheque, bank draft or electronic banking

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 13 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

channels prior to the date of agreement. Referring to the First and channels prior to the date of agreement. Referring to the First and channels prior to the date of agreement. Referring to the First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the learned counsel rovisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the learned counsel rovisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the learned counsel submitted that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 constituted submitted that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 constituted submitted that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 constituted the operative agreement for transfer of the property and that the operative agreement for transfer of the property and that the operative agreement for transfer of the property and that substantial consideration had already been paid through banking substantial consideration had already been paid through banking substantial consideration had already been paid through banking channels during Financial Years 2010 uring Financial Years 2010-11 and 2012- -13.

4.4 Inviting our attention to page 88 of the paper book, the Inviting our attention to page 88 of the paper book, the Inviting our attention to page 88 of the paper book, the learned counsel submitted that the stamp duty valuation prevailing learned counsel submitted that the stamp duty valuation prevailing learned counsel submitted that the stamp duty valuation prevailing during Financial Year 2010 during Financial Year 2010-11 was Rs.1,44,000/- per square metre per square metre and, accordingly, the total stamp duty value of the office premises and, accordingly, the total stamp duty value of the office premises and, accordingly, the total stamp duty value of the office premises admeasuring 44.50 square metres worked out to Rs.64,08,000/- admeasuring 44.50 square metres worked out to Rs.64,08,000/ admeasuring 44.50 square metres worked out to Rs.64,08,000/ (i.e. 44.50 sq mtr X 144,000 per Sq Mtr). It was, therefore, (i.e. 44.50 sq mtr X 144,000 per Sq Mtr). It was, therefore, (i.e. 44.50 sq mtr X 144,000 per Sq Mtr). It was, therefore, contended that the purchase consideration of Rs.71,90,000/- paid contended that the purchase consideration of Rs.71,90,000/ contended that the purchase consideration of Rs.71,90,000/ by the assessee was substantially higher than the applicable stamp y the assessee was substantially higher than the applicable stamp y the assessee was substantially higher than the applicable stamp duty valuation prevailing during Financial Year 2010-11. The duty valuation prevailing during Financial Year 2010 duty valuation prevailing during Financial Year 2010 learned counsel accordingly submitted that, once the First and learned counsel accordingly submitted that, once the First and learned counsel accordingly submitted that, once the First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) are properly applied, no Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) are properly applied, no Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) are properly applied, no addition under section 56(2)(x) could legally survive. addition under section 56(2)(x) could legally survive. addition under section 56(2)(x) could legally survive.

4.5 The The The learned learned learned counsel counsel counsel lastly lastly lastly submitted submitted submitted that, that, that, once once once the the the acquisition of the property is accepted as having taken place in acquisition of the property is accepted as having taken place in acquisition of the property is accepted as having taken place in Financial Year 2010 Financial Year 2010-11, the period of holding upon subsequent 11, the period of holding upon subsequent transfer during Financial Year 2017 Financial Year 2017-18 would exceed thirty 18 would exceed thirty-six

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 14 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

months and, consequently, the resultant gains would necessarily months and, consequently, the resultant gains would necessarily months and, consequently, the resultant gains would necessarily partake the character of long partake the character of long-term capital gains and not short term capital gains and not short-term capital gains, as erroneously held by the Assessing Officer. capital gains, as erroneously held by the Assessing Officer. capital gains, as erroneously held by the Assessing Officer.

5.1 The principal controversy arising for adjudication pertains to The principal controversy arising for adjudication pertains to The principal controversy arising for adjudication pertains to the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income 1961, representing the alleged differential between the stamp duty 1961, representing the alleged differential between t 1961, representing the alleged differential between t valuation and the consideration disclosed by the assessee in respect valuation and the consideration disclosed by the assessee in respect valuation and the consideration disclosed by the assessee in respect of the immovable property acquired by her. The consequential issue of the immovable property acquired by her. The consequential issue of the immovable property acquired by her. The consequential issue relates to the character of the resultant capital gain, namely, relates to the character of the resultant capital gain, namely, relates to the character of the resultant capital gain, namely, whether the same is liable to be assessed whether the same is liable to be assessed as Short as Short-Term Capital Gain or Long-Term Capital Gain. Term Capital Gain.

5.2 The foundation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, The foundation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, The foundation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned CIT(A), rests substantially upon the and sustained by the learned CIT(A), rests substantially upon the and sustained by the learned CIT(A), rests substantially upon the

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 15 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

premise that the assessee acquired enforceable rights in the premise that the assessee acquired enforceable rights in the premise that the assessee acquired enforceable rights in the property only upon execution of the registered conveyance deed property only upon execution of the registered conveyance deed property only upon execution of the registered conveyance deed dated 11.08.2017 and that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 dated 11.08.2017 and that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 dated 11.08.2017 and that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 lacked credibility. The learned CIT(A) further proceeded on the lacked credibility. The learned CIT(A) further proceeded on the lacked credibility. The learned CIT(A) further proceeded on the assumption that the conditions prescribed in the provisos to mption that the conditions prescribed in the provisos to mption that the conditions prescribed in the provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) stood unfulfilled merely because the cheque Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) stood unfulfilled merely because the cheque Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) stood unfulfilled merely because the cheque towards part payment of consideration, though admittedly tendered towards part payment of consideration, though admittedly tendered towards part payment of consideration, though admittedly tendered earlier, was realized through banking channels on a subsequent earlier, was realized through banking channels on a subsequent earlier, was realized through banking channels on a subsequent date. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid approach of the lower e. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid approach of the lower e. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid approach of the lower authorities is unduly hyper authorities is unduly hyper-technical, contrary to the legislative technical, contrary to the legislative intent underlying the provisos, and unsustainable in law. intent underlying the provisos, and unsustainable in law. intent underlying the provisos, and unsustainable in law.

5.3 It is not in dispute that the allotment letter dated 10.04. It is not in dispute that the allotment letter dated 10.04. It is not in dispute that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 specifically records receipt of cheque payment of Rs.10,00,000/- specifically records receipt of cheque payment of Rs.10,00,000/ specifically records receipt of cheque payment of Rs.10,00,000/ from the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee that from the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee that from the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee that the original cheque could not be realized owing to technical banking the original cheque could not be realized owing to technical banking the original cheque could not be realized owing to technical banking reasons and that a substitute cheque was thereafter honoured reasons and that a substitute cheque was thereafter reasons and that a substitute cheque was thereafter through banking channels has neither been disproved by any through banking channels has neither been disproved by any through banking channels has neither been disproved by any cogent evidence nor found to be inherently improbable. Merely cogent evidence nor found to be inherently improbable. Merely cogent evidence nor found to be inherently improbable. Merely because the cheque amount ultimately stood debited from the bank because the cheque amount ultimately stood debited from the bank because the cheque amount ultimately stood debited from the bank account of the assessee on 05.08.2010 cannot, by itself, lead to the account of the assessee on 05.08.2010 cannot, by itself, lea account of the assessee on 05.08.2010 cannot, by itself, lea inference that the allotment letter was fabricated or subsequently inference that the allotment letter was fabricated or subsequently inference that the allotment letter was fabricated or subsequently created. Once the cheque had already been tendered by the created. Once the cheque had already been tendered by the created. Once the cheque had already been tendered by the assessee, the timing of its presentation or encashment substantially assessee, the timing of its presentation or encashment substantially assessee, the timing of its presentation or encashment substantially

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 16 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

remained within the domain and control of the recipient developer. remained within the domain and control of the recipie remained within the domain and control of the recipie The assessee cannot be denied the statutory benefit merely on The assessee cannot be denied the statutory benefit merely on The assessee cannot be denied the statutory benefit merely on account of procedural or banking delays which do not alter the account of procedural or banking delays which do not alter the account of procedural or banking delays which do not alter the substantive nature of the transaction. substantive nature of the transaction.

5.4 In our considered view, the requirement contemplated under In our considered view, the requirement contemplated under In our considered view, the requirement contemplated under the Second Proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is one of substantial and oviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is one of substantial and oviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is one of substantial and demonstrable compliance and not of pedantic or ritualistic demonstrable compliance and not of pedantic or ritualistic demonstrable compliance and not of pedantic or ritualistic exactitude. The evidences placed on record sufficiently establish exactitude. The evidences placed on record sufficiently establish exactitude. The evidences placed on record sufficiently establish that part consideration had, in fact, moved through banking that part consideration had, in fact, moved through banking that part consideration had, in fact, moved through banking channels pursuant to and contemporaneous with the allotment uant to and contemporaneous with the allotment uant to and contemporaneous with the allotment arrangement. Consequently, the objection raised by the Revenue arrangement. Consequently, the objection raised by the Revenue arrangement. Consequently, the objection raised by the Revenue that the conditions of the proviso stood violated is devoid of merit that the conditions of the proviso stood violated is devoid of merit that the conditions of the proviso stood violated is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. and liable to be rejected.

5.6 We are equally unable to subscribe to the re We are equally unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted asoning adopted by the learned CIT(A) that the transaction deserves to be viewed by the learned CIT(A) that the transaction deserves to be viewed by the learned CIT(A) that the transaction deserves to be viewed adversely merely because the assessee was associated with entities adversely merely because the assessee was associated with entities adversely merely because the assessee was associated with entities belonging to the Naman Group or because her father was a Director belonging to the Naman Group or because her father was a Director belonging to the Naman Group or because her father was a Director in the seller company. Relationship betwee in the seller company. Relationship between parties, by itself, n parties, by itself, cannot constitute a legal ground to disregard otherwise valid cannot constitute a legal ground to disregard otherwise valid cannot constitute a legal ground to disregard otherwise valid documentary evidences, particularly in the absence of any material documentary evidences, particularly in the absence of any material documentary evidences, particularly in the absence of any material establishing sham, collusion, colourable device, or flow-back of establishing sham, collusion, colourable device, or flow establishing sham, collusion, colourable device, or flow

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 17 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

consideration. Suspicion, however strong consideration. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. , cannot substitute proof. The conclusions drawn by the lower authorities in this regard are The conclusions drawn by the lower authorities in this regard are The conclusions drawn by the lower authorities in this regard are founded more on conjecture than on legally admissible evidence. founded more on conjecture than on legally admissible evidence. founded more on conjecture than on legally admissible evidence.

5.7 Once the assessee is held entitled to the benefit of the First Once the assessee is held entitled to the benefit of the First Once the assessee is held entitled to the benefit of the First and Second Provisos to Section and Second Provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the stamp duty 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the allotment agreement is required to valuation as on the date of the allotment agreement is required to valuation as on the date of the allotment agreement is required to be adopted for the purposes of comparison with the purchase be adopted for the purposes of comparison with the purchase be adopted for the purposes of comparison with the purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has placed consideration disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has placed consideration disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has placed material on record indicating th material on record indicating that the stamp duty valuation at the stamp duty valuation prevailing prevailing during during Financial Financial Year Year 2010-11 2010 11 worked worked out out to to Rs.64,08,000/-, which is admittedly lower than the purchase , which is admittedly lower than the purchase , which is admittedly lower than the purchase consideration of Rs.71,90,000/ consideration of Rs.71,90,000/- paid by the assessee. If such paid by the assessee. If such valuation is found to be correct upon verification, valuation is found to be correct upon verification, no addition under no addition under Section 56(2)(x) could legally survive. Section 56(2)(x) could legally survive.

5.8 At the same time, since the precise stamp duty valuation At the same time, since the precise stamp duty valuation At the same time, since the precise stamp duty valuation prevailing as on the date of allotment requires factual verification prevailing as on the date of allotment requires factual verification prevailing as on the date of allotment requires factual verification from the relevant statutory records, we deem it appropriate, in the from the relevant statutory records, we deem it appropriate, in t from the relevant statutory records, we deem it appropriate, in t interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the stamp duty valuation Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the stamp duty valuation Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the stamp duty valuation of the property as on 10.04.2010. In the event the valuation so of the property as on 10.04.2010. In the event the valuation so of the property as on 10.04.2010. In the event the valuation so verified is found to be lower than or commensurate with the verified is found to be lower than or commensur verified is found to be lower than or commensur

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 18 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee, no addition purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee, no addition purchase consideration disclosed by the assessee, no addition under Section 56(2)(x) shall survive. The Assessing Officer shall under Section 56(2)(x) shall survive. The Assessing Officer shall under Section 56(2)(x) shall survive. The Assessing Officer shall confine himself strictly to the aforesaid limited verification and confine himself strictly to the aforesaid limited verification and confine himself strictly to the aforesaid limited verification and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.9 Insofar as the issue relating to the nature of capital gain is Insofar as the issue relating to the nature of capital gain is Insofar as the issue relating to the nature of capital gain is concerned, once the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 is accepted concerned, once the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 is accepted concerned, once the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 is accepted as conferring substantive and enforceable ri as conferring substantive and enforceable rights in the property and ghts in the property and the substantial consideration stood paid during Financial Years the substantial consideration stood paid during Financial Years the substantial consideration stood paid during Financial Years 2010-11 and 2012-13, the period of holding necessarily has to be 13, the period of holding necessarily has to be 13, the period of holding necessarily has to be reckoned from the date of allotment and not merely from the date of reckoned from the date of allotment and not merely from the date of reckoned from the date of allotment and not merely from the date of execution of the formal conveyance execution of the formal conveyance deed. The approach adopted by deed. The approach adopted by the lower authorities in treating the date of registration alone as the lower authorities in treating the date of registration alone as the lower authorities in treating the date of registration alone as determinative of acquisition is legally misconceived and contrary to determinative of acquisition is legally misconceived and contrary to determinative of acquisition is legally misconceived and contrary to the settled principles governing allotment the settled principles governing allotment-based acquisition of based acquisition of immovable property. Cons immovable property. Consequently, the gain arising on transfer of equently, the gain arising on transfer of the property on 13.10.2017 is liable to be assessed as Long-Term the property on 13.10.2017 is liable to be assessed as Long the property on 13.10.2017 is liable to be assessed as Long Capital Gain and not as Short Capital Gain and not as Short-Term Capital Gain as erroneously Term Capital Gain as erroneously held by the authorities below. held by the authorities below.

5.10 Accordingly, Ground No. 1(b) raised by the assessee Accordingly, Ground No. 1(b) raised by the assessee Accordingly, Ground No. 1(b) raised by the assessee stands allowed, whereas Ground No. 1(a) is restored to the file of stands allowed, whereas Ground No. 1(a) is restored to the file of stands allowed, whereas Ground No. 1(a) is restored to the file of

Maniti Jayesh Shah, 19 ITA No. 287/MUM/2026

the Assessing Officer for the limited verification indicated the Assessing Officer for the limited verification indicated the Assessing Officer for the limited verification indicated hereinabove.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11 ounced in the open Court on 11/05/2026. /05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (ANIKESH BANERJEE (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/05/2026 Kunal Kumar, 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