RITU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1063/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide specific findings on whether the properties were stock-in-trade and if the difference in value was minor enough to warrant no addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased properties for consideration less than the stamp duty value. The assessee argued that the difference was less than 10% and the properties were stock-in-trade, making Section 56(2)(vii) inapplicable. The lower authorities did not effectively address these points.

What were the issues?

Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii) when property is stock-in-trade and whether a minor difference (less than 10%) between purchase price and stamp duty value warrants addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Adv & Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.1063 & 1064/JPR/2025 Ritu Gupta IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1063 & 1064/JPR/2025 (Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2017-18) Ritu Gupta Vs. DCIT Village Ramnagaria, Central Circle 1, Jagatpura Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur Jaipur 303902 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AGJPG9953H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv & Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) for different assessment years dated 14.05.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The common issue raised in both the appeals is regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and further confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act alleging that the assessee, during the relevant

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos.1063 & 1064/JPR/2025 Ritu Gupta years, purchased certain properties at a consideration less than the stamp duty value as declared by the Stamp Duty Authorities. The learned counsel for the assessee in both the appeals has made two-fold submissions; firstly, that the difference in the stamp duty value and the purchase value declared by the assessee was less than 10%; secondly, that the property purchased was stock-in-trade, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. So far as the issue that the properties purchased were held as stock-in-trade is concerned, we note that the assessee had not taken this ground before the Assessing Officer (in short, “the AO”); however, this ground was specifically taken by the assessee before the Appellate Authority/Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report from the AO in this respect and directed the AO to specifically answer the aforesaid point, however, the AO in his remand report has not answered the said point specifically and has mentioned that the assessee has not taken up the said argument during the assessment proceedings. Even the second issue of difference in the purchase value and the stamp duty being less than 10% has also not been addressed by any of the lower authorities. In view of above stated facts, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without any effective findings on any of the above stated both the issues.

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos.1063 & 1064/JPR/2025 Ritu Gupta 4. We, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh with a direction to give his finding on both the issues raised by the assessee; firstly, that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act are not applicable to the transactions in question as the property purchased was allegedly held as stock in trade, and secondly, the differences between the purchase value and the stamp duty value being the minor difference, that is less than 10%,no addition is warranted, as has been held by various authorities that the corresponding provisions of Section 50C of the Act in this respect should also be applicable to the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) will consider both the points and give a specific finding on both the issues by way of a speaking order.

5.

With the above observation, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 26.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos.1063 & 1064/JPR/2025 Ritu Gupta Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →