RIZWANA MOHAMMED BHOPALWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAXATION WARD 1 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9188/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2026AY 2018-1910 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement, or when part payments were made by account payee cheque, should be considered as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO was directed to verify the payments made by April 2015.

What were the facts?

The assessee booked a flat in 2012, but the project was stalled. Subsequently, an alternate flat was allotted in lieu of the original one. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) made an addition based on the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration of the new flat.

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty value on the date of the original booking or the date of the agreement/part payment should be considered for addition under Section 56(2)(x) when an alternate property is allotted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 263,Section 145B,Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

per the details given in page 2 of PB, the assessee had paid Rs.6,18,540/- to the

builder on 24/27.04.2015 by cheques issued from Union Bank of India. In view of

these facts, we are of the considered view that the stamp duty value of April, 2015

should be taken for determining the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and not the

ITA Nos.9188 & 9189/MUM/2025 Rizwana Mohamed Bhopalwala Individual and Mohamed Enayat Bhopalwala Individual

stamp duty value of May, 2017. However, the AO has not verified these details in

the assessment order. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand back the matter

to the AO for verification of the claim of the assessee regarding payments of

purchase consideration upto April, 2015 and allow the necessary relief as per law

after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

assessee. The ground is partly allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. ITA No.9188/Mum/2025 (AY 2018-19) 10. The grounds of appeal as well as the facts and circumstances of the above

appeal for assessment year 2018-19 are similar to the grounds and facts and

circumstances in case of Rizwana Mohd. Bhopalwala; therefore, the findings given

in the appeal for AY 2018-19 in ITA No.9189/Mum/2025 (supra) shall apply

mutatis mutandis to the assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, the appeal is

partly allowed.

11.

In combined result, both appeals are partly allowed. Order is pronounced on 09.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 09.09.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 9

ITA Nos.9188 & 9189/MUM/2025 Rizwana Mohamed Bhopalwala Individual and Mohamed Enayat Bhopalwala Individual

1.

The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →