CHHAYA DIVYESH PATEL,VADODARA GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX, CIRCLE INT.TXN VADODARA GUJARAT

ITA 290/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 June 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased property where the sale deed was registered on 29.04.2019 for Rs. 6,49,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) invoked Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) and added the difference between the stamp duty value (Rs. 2,25,99,980/-) and the actual consideration, treating it as undisclosed income.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO and DRP were not justified in confirming the addition. The Tribunal noted that the agreement fixing the consideration was executed prior to the registration date, and payments were made through banking channels, satisfying the conditions of the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x).

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty value on the date of registration or the actual consideration as per an earlier agreement should be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) when there was a prior agreement and part payment through banking channels.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B),Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 144C(5),Section 142(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 30.04.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai-2 (in short “DRP”) dated 23.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment order pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 147 r.w.s 144C (13) of the act. The impugned order, so passed, is unjustified, bad in law, contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and liable to be quashed.

2.

The Hon'ble DRP erred in issuing cryptic, non-speaking dire

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →