MITA BHARTI,BHAGALPUR vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 May 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the flat number mentioned in the money receipt (B-404) versus the sale agreement and deed (B-402). It directed the AO to verify the ownership of Flat B-404 physically and through registered documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 13,36,000, while its stamp duty value was Rs. 27,05,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 13,69,000 under Section 56(2)(x) as deemed income. The assessee contended that the advance payment was made earlier and relied on Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) is sustainable when the assessee claims the transaction falls under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) due to an earlier agreement date and advance payment, and whether there was a clerical error in property identification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PATNA

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, CA
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 219/PAT/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17

Mita Bharti, Vs. National Faceless W/o Rohit Kumar Raju, Assessment Centre, Lal Kothi, Sultanganj, (NFAC), Delhi Bhagalpur - 813213 [PAN: BOSPB1147N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 03.03.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073935161(1) challenging the legal issue

2 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti for reopening the case on merits for applying the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried employee as a teacher, earlier the income was below the threshold limit therefore, the return of income was not filed by the assessee. As per the credible information received from ACIT, Central Circle, - Patna on 10.02.2021. The assessee is related to search conducted on beneficiaries of Srijan Scam by the DDIT (Inv.), Bhagalpur, Bihar. Accordingly, after following the due procedure the notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee on 31.03.2021 to file a true and correct return of income in respect of the assessment but the assessee failed to furnish return of income. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On the basis of data analytics and information gathered, it was noticed that the assessee has purchased immovable property vide deed No. 3457 dated 20.02.2016 from M/s Angika Vihar Building Development and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. at price of Rs. 13,36,000/- while the stamp duty value of the property is Rs. 27,05,000/-. Thus, the assessee is liable for the tax on the different amount of Rs. 13,69,000/- as per the provision of Income tax Act u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Assessee furnished reply which was not accepted by the AO. The assessee submitted that the Flat No. 402 and sale agreement was made on 26.03.2010 at Rs. 11,61,600/- and advance was made of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque No. 912 was issued

3 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti from her husband Shri Rohit Kumar Raju, Accountant, the assessee also relied on section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act but the submission of the assessee was not considered and the AO made addition u/s 56(2)(x) for Rs. 13,69,000/- which was treated as deemed income. The AO noted that the property got registered in February, 2016 that for the stamp duty value shall be considered at the time of registration of the property, which were considered as deemed income under the head income from other sources and AO made of Rs. 13,59,000/-.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions, documentary evidence viz. sale agreement, sale deed, money receipt and details of payment made etc. Still the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved from the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and strongly submitted that the assessee purchased property Flat No. 402, from M/s Angika Vihar Building Development and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in the sale agreement it is mentioned Flat No. 402 as well as in the sale deed also is for Flat No. 402, which is clear from the sale deed. Similarly, there is a mistake done

4 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti by the builder while issuing money receipt for payment of advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 19th July 2010 by way of cheque No. 912707 the money receipt is that paper book placed at page no. 29. Later on, as per the direction of the Bench vide order dated 11.03.2026 the assessee furnished confirmation certificate from M/s Angika Vihar Building Development and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in which the said vendor as stated that the Flat No. B-404 is wrongly mentioned in the money receipt, it is a Flat No. B-402 and details of the payments were also shown for Rs. 13,36,600/- in which on 19th July 2010 and advance payment was given for Rs. 1,00,000/- Therefore, the assessee case is fall under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which says that where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of the transfer of the asset or not same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement and for transfer and not as on the date of registration of such transfer. However, this provision shall apply only in those cases were advance amount is for consideration are part thereof for the transfer . The money has been paid by way of on account by payee cheque and the amount paid on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. The assessee has satisfied all these conditions as per the above provisions and requested that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.

5 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the builder has issued money receipt of Flat No. B-404 which evident from the money receipt and the information received on the basis of search conducted.

7.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and order of authorities below. We noted that here the dispute raised by the AO and the assessee are that whether the case of the assessee falls under the provision of section 56(2)(x) and/or 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. On going through the registered documents, we noted from the documents produced before us that Flat No. B-402 but there is no any evidence for the Flat No. B-404 unit is registered in the name of the assessee even the department is also unable to establish that the assessee is owner of Flat B-404. As per the primary evidence it appears that the assessee is covered under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in advance through the account payee cheque which was drawn later on 24.07.2010 from the Bank of Baroda, vide cheque No. 912707 dated 19.07.2010. We also gone through the money receipt produced by the assessee, we found that the money receipt issued dated 09.07.2010 by M/s Angika Vihar Building Development and Constructions Pvt. Ltd is for Flat B-404. Later on, as per the direction of the Bench dated 11.03.2026 the assessee has filed a confirmation certificate from M/s Angika Vihar Building Development

6 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in which it has been clearly stated that the property is in n the name of the assessee for Flat B-402. The case of the assessee has been reopened on the basis of credible evidence/information received on the basis of search conducted on beneficiaries of Srijan Scam by the DDIT (Inv.), Bhagalpur. Therefore, it needs to be verified from the cogent documents who is the owner of Flat B-404. Therefore, the AO is directed to get it verified from the Income- Tax Inspector physically. He will visit to the place and the AO has to also verified from the documents registered with the Registrar Office in respect of Flat B-404, in whose name it is registered, if it is found that the assessee is actual owner of Flat B-402 only then benefit of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to be given and if it is found otherwise then the assessment order will sustain.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.05.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

7 ITA No. 219/PAT/2025 Mita Bharti

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →