NITIN SANTOSH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

ITA 5261/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 September 2026AY 2018-197 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Santosh Singh, filed his return for AY 2018-19 declaring Rs.4,00,740. His case was selected for limited scrutiny regarding investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the assessee jointly purchased a property in Goregaon, Mumbai, with his mother and sister for Rs.1,22,48,200, registered on 22.06.2017. The stamp duty valuation on registration was Rs.1,82,00,000. The AO attributed one-third of the Rs.59,51,800 difference (Rs.19,83,933) to the assessee under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended the property was allotted on 22.12.2012 for Rs.1,22,48,200, with payments made through banking channels, providing an allotment letter. The AO rejected this due to lack of bank statements for 2012. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's appeal for non-response. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the limited controversy pertains to the appropriate date for valuing the immovable property for the impugned addition. It acknowledged the assessee's contention that the transaction originated from an allotment dated 22.12.2012, when the consideration was fixed, and payments were made through banking channels, supported by an allotment letter and payment evidence. The Tribunal referred to the Coordinate Bench decision in Purvi Nihal Shah v. ITO, which held that where the date of agreement/allotment fixing consideration differs from the registration date, and payment through banking channels on or before the allotment date is fulfilled, the stamp duty value on the allotment date requires consideration. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the allotment letter, fixed consideration, evidence of banking channel payments, and the applicable stamp duty/Ready Reckoner value for FY 2012-13. The assessee will be given an opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence. The AO shall pass a reasoned order. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the date of allotment/agreement and date of registration differ, and payments were made through banking channels. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the property was allotted on 22.12.2012, fixing the consideration, and payments were made via banking channels. They relied on the allotment letter and supporting documents. They cited the decision in Purvi Nihal Shah v. ITO (ITA No.470/Mum/2026) to argue that the stamp duty valuation on the allotment date should be considered if statutory conditions are met, and prayed for the matter to be restored to the AO for verification. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities, stating the registered agreement was in AY 2018-19, the stamp duty valuation on registration was higher than the stated consideration, and the AO had noted the absence of complete supporting evidence for payments made pursuant to the earlier allotment. They submitted the revenue authorities' action was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & MS. RATNA DASGUPTA

PER: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], order passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 17.06.2026. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless

ITA 5261/MUM/2026 NITIN SANTOSH SINGH

Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the

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)

All 165 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →