LADAM HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

ITA 5788/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2016-1714 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. For two flats (A-804 and A-1103), the differences of Rs. 2,29,610/- (5.00%) and Rs. 1,79,582/- (3.76%) respectively were found to be within a permissible band, and these additions were deleted. Regarding the third flat (A-702), the difference of Rs. 18,25,790/- (51.88%) was substantial. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding a 2011 allotment and consideration fixing required examination. It noted that Section 43CA(2) read with Section 50C(2) provides for reference to the Valuation Officer when the assessee disputes the stamp duty value. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reliance on Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT, stating that the AO ought to refer to the DVO when stamp duty value exceeds disclosed consideration, especially when the assessee specifically requests it. The issue concerning Flat A-702 was restored to the AO for fresh examination, including verification of the 2011 allotment, compliance with Section 43CA(3)/(4), and a potential reference to the DVO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ladam Homes Private Limited, is a real estate developer. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, suspecting income had escaped assessment. Information indicated that the assessee had transferred three flats in its 'Kashish Park' project at Kalyan for consideration lower than the stamp duty values. The aggregate difference was Rs. 22,34,982/-. The AO made this addition to the assessee's income under Section 43CA. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the addition. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 22,34,982/- under Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the difference between actual sale consideration and stamp valuation authority's value for three flats is justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the difference for two flats was marginal and within permissible limits. For one flat (A-702), the booking date in 2011 should be considered, not the registration date in 2016. The assessee also contended that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 43CA(2). The assessee relied on the booking application form and bank statements for the 2011 allotment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO and supported by the CIT(A), argued that the difference exceeded statutory thresholds and the 10% tolerance band introduced by Finance Act, 2020, was not applicable for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) held that reference to the Valuation Officer was not automatic and the assessee had not substantiated its claim with cogent evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43CA,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 50C,Section 50C(2),Section 50C(3),Section 43CA(2),Section 43CA(3),Section 43CA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CA, Shri Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)
Hearing: 03/09/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28/03/2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, 'the CIT(A)') for A.Y. 2016-17, raising following grounds:

“1 The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 22,34,982/- u/s 43CA of the 1.T. Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual sale consideration and the value as per stamp valuation authority in respect of three flats booked by customers in the real estate project Kashish Park undertaken by appellant

ITA 5788/MUM/2026 2

co

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 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →