YUSUF ALI SAYAD,SIKAR vs. ITO WD 1, SIKAR, SIKAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 258/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2015-16)

Yusuf Ali Sayad Vs. ITO Ward No.2 Mohalla Ward 1 Jamindaran Dhani Sikar Sikar �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:CZRPS 0418 N Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Aarti Rawat, JCIT

Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 11.12.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. Rs.2,54,180/-: The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 2,54,180/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property, ignoring the material evidence available on record. Hence, the addition so made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is being absolutely, contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and not in conformity with the law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs.31,89,500/-: The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.31,89,500/- u/s 56(2) (vii) by taking the value of the property at Rs. 71,34,500/- value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority as against the actual purchased value of the property at Rs.39,45,000/-, ignoring the material evidence available on record. Hence, the addition so made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is being absolutely, contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and not in conformity with the law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged u/s 23A, 4B, 234C by the Ld. AO. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The appellant prays your honours indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of:-  unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.2,54,180/- and  on account of the difference in the stamp duty value of the investment made and the actual consideration paid amounting to Rs.31,89,500/- made by invoking Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee was found to have made investment in immovable property during the impugned year by way of purchase

P a g e | 3 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad of a flat in Mumbai from A Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.39,45,000/-, which was registered during the impugned year on 30.09.2014. However, the stamp duty valuation of the same was noted to be Rs.71,34,500/-. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, the case of the assessee was reopened on account of the income, pertaining to the investment in the immovable property to the tune of Rs.71,34,500/- , escaping assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2022. During assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the property had been purchased vide an agreement executed in the earlier year on 28.08.2010 for a total consideration of Rs.39,45,000/-, and only the purchase document was registered during the impugned year, i.e. FY 2014-15 pertaining to AY 2015-16. That the entire consideration was paid through banking modes in earlier years and the source of investment was also explained as out of amounts received from one S.S. Construction Company Mumbai. The AO noted from the facts before him that the total investment made by the assessee for the purchase of the impugned property was Rs.44,33,780/- (cost of flat of Rs.39,45,000/- and stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.3,88,780/-). He found the assessee to have paid advance of Rs.40,79,600/- in earlier years from explained sources, and the remaining Rs.2,54,180/- he held remained unexplained and accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee . 5. Further, noting that the property was registered during the impugned year and its stamp duty value was Rs. 71,34,500/- , therefore

P a g e | 4 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration paid by the assessee of Rs. 31,89,500/- was treated as income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act . 6. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before me. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the Authorities Below. 8. It is an admitted fact that the agreement to purchase the impugned property was entered into by the assessee in 28.08.2010, and entire consideration also was paid in the earlier year. The alleged sale deed though was registered in the impugned year on 30.09.2014 at the consideration agreed earlier. 9. Thus, as per the facts of the present case, the agreement to purchase the property was entered into by the assessee in the earlier year and entire consideration, as agreed, was paid by banking channels in the preceding years. It was only the registration of the agreement which took place for the impugned year. 10. The proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act in this regard states that where the agreement topurchase to an immovable property has been entered into the earlier years and amount of consideration has been paid by modes other than cash or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement needs to be considered for the purpose of Section

P a g e | 5 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The relevant proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-

…….. Income from other sources. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— ……… (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April,2017,— (a) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,— (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property;

….….. 11. In the facts of the present case therefore, since the agreement fixing the consideration for the purchase of property had admittedly been entered into the earlier year ,i.e. in 2010, and the consideration as so determined by the agreement had been paid in the earlier years

P a g e | 6 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad through banking channels, the stamp duty value, as per law, was to be taken of 2010. In the impugned case the stamp duty value of the year in which the deed was registered being substituted for the actual consideration, the same was clearly not in accordance with law. 12. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Ld. CIT(A) has acted in clear violation of law in confirming the addition made to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act, of Rs.31,89,500/- by substituting the stamp duty value of the property purchase for the impugned year and the same is directed to be deleted. 13. As for the addition of Rs.2,54,180/- the same relates to registration charges of the immoveable property purchased. The same was found to be paid in cash, and was held to be unexplained in the absence of any explanation for the same being given. 14. The assessee admittedly has filed return of income declaring income of Rs.94,370/- on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act which has been accepted by the AO.As per section 44AD net profit of small businesses is estimated @8% of the turnover and the same is returned to tax without the assessee being required to maintain any books of accounts. Considering the same, the assesses profit returned of Rs.94,370/- reflects a turnover of approx. Rs.11.80 lacs. It is clear therefore that the assessee had sources of income in cash to justify investment of Rs. 2,54,180/- in cash for registration of the immoveable property purchased. The addition made of the said amount treating the source of investment remaining unexplained, is therefore found to be devoid of merits and is also directed to be deleted.

P a g e | 7 ITA No.258/JPR/2026 Yusuf Ali Sayad 15. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 31.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur