MAHADEO GANGARAM SHIGWAN,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard on record perused. The Learned authorised representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submits that during the relevant financial year the assessee with his wife purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 65,17,500/-. The sale deed was registered with Sub-Registrar concern. The assessee was having 50% share in the said property. The Stamp Valuation Authority / Sub-Registrar while registering the transaction valued the property at Rs. 86,76,969/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 21,59,459/- vis-à-vis the value determined by stamp valuation authority and the value declared by assessee. The AO during assessment issued show cause notice for proposing addition under section 56(2)(x)(b)(B). In response to show cause notice, the assessee filed reply. The AO disregarded the submission of assessee and made addition under section 56(2)(x) of Rs. 10,79,730/- being 50% of difference in the hand of assessee in the assessment order dated 13.04.2021. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the action of AO was confirmed, despite bringing the fact to his notice that assessee made booking of said property / flat in 2013 and first payment was made on 14.05.2013 by way of cheque. The initial payment was made at the time of fixing the final sale consideration. Before ld. CIT(A) as well as AO, the assessee furnished complete detail of part payment and subsequent payment of Rs. 10.00 lacs on 17.05.2013 and Rs. 5.00 lacs on 21.05.2013. The assessee furnished complete details of entire sale consideration. The ld. CIT(A) disregarded all such submissions. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is entitled for the benefit of first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x) as part payment of consideration was paid through banking channel at the time of fixing the final sale consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also furnished the copy of bank statement / pass book of co-owner / wife of assessee, Smt. Sulochana Mahadeo Shigwan.

On the other hand, the learned senior departmental representative(ldSr DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessee purchased an immovable property along with his wife and has shown sale consideration of Rs. 65,17,500/-. The Stamp Valuation Authority valued the transaction of such sale of Rs. 86,76,969/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 21,59,459/-. The AO while passing the assessment order made addition of 50% of difference vis-à-vis this value declared by assessee and the value determined by stamp valuation authority. We find before ld. CIT(A) the assessee furnished complete detail of part payment from the account of co- owner, Smt. Sulochana Mahadeo Shigwan and part payment from his bank account. We find that despite recording all such fact, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. We find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) ignored that substantial payment was made by assessee either in 2011, 2012 or in 2013 & 2014 in pursuance of agreement. We find that assessee has placed on record bank statement reflecting payments made in November 2011 as well as December 2011 at ₹ 2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. The assessee has also shown payments made through account pay cheque in 2012, 2013 and 2015. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual discussion we find that when the assessee paid substantial part payment in pursuance of agreement by way of banking channel, hence the assessee is eligible to the benefit of First &Second Proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In the result, the substantial ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result of appeal of the assessee is allowed Order was pronounced on 11/06/2026. Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER