SWETA SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

ITA 1656/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2026AY 2015-20166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the dispute concerned the determination of the fair market value (FMV) of the property. The AO had made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between the stamp duty value and the assessee's offered value. The assessee's contention that the FMV should be considered as of the agreement date (July 22, 2011), when part payment was made via cheque, was not accepted by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO had made the addition without referring the matter to the DVO. It held that if there was a dispute regarding the value determined by the assessee and the stamp duty value adopted by the Sub-Registrar, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for correct determination of the FMV as per Section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for determining the correct FMV as of the agreement date. The assessee was directed to produce relevant evidence of payment by cheque on the agreement date. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the correct FMV and pass a decision accordingly after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The issue regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interest paid on loan was also implicitly remitted as part of the overall remittance for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sweta Somani, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's (AO) addition of Rs. 27,42,221/- under Section 56(2)(b)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, representing the difference between the stamp duty value of a property and the consideration paid. The assessee contended that the property was purchased based on an agreement dated July 22, 2011, with part consideration paid through banking channels, and the fair market value should be determined as of the agreement date. The property was registered on November 14, 2017. The AO treated the unregistered agreement as inadmissible evidence and used the stamp duty value at registration. The AO also disallowed a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interest paid on a housing loan. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the fair market value (FMV) of the property for the purpose of Section 56(2)(b)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be determined as of the date of the agreement (July 22, 2011) or the date of registration (November 14, 2017), considering part payment was made through banking channels at the time of the agreement. (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 56(2)(b)(vii) and Section 50C). 2. Whether the AO erred in not referring the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the FMV as per Section 50C of the Act read with Section 56(2)(b)(vii) of the Act. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action in adding back Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed as interest paid on a loan for a house property without sufficient reason, despite evidence of payment. (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 24(b)). Assessee's contentions: The AO should have considered the FMV as of the agreement date, as part consideration was paid through banking channels. The AO should have referred the matter to the DVO as per Section 50C of the Act. The addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for housing loan interest was a genuine claim under Section 24(b) and was wrongly disallowed. Revenue's contentions: The assessee failed to furnish relevant documents to the satisfaction of the AO to consider the FMV as of the agreement date. No evidence was furnished for the claim of interest deduction under Section 24(b).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(b)(vii),Section 50C,Section 24(b),Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Gurugram [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 18.03.2026 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087530491(1), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, arising out of the Assessment order dated 19.12.2017 on the following Grounds of Appeal:-

1.

For that they Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in adding back Rs.27,42,221/- u/s 56(2)(b)(vii) when he should have considered the fair market value of the property purchased on the date of agreement since part consideration was paid through banking channels. 2

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 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →