MR. SHANTILAL GOVIND PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Mr. Shantilal Govind Patel
235/6137 Shiv Darshan
Building, Pant Nagar,
Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai-400077. Vs.
ITO, 27(3)(1), Mumbai
ITO, Vashi Railway Station
Building,
Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN: AFQPP6370R
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri. Nilesh Joshi Advocate
Revenue by Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT- DR
Date of Hearing
11/06/2025
Date of Pronouncement
13/06/2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Ld. CIT(A)] dated 26.02.202025 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 87,84,092/- and made addition under section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax.

ITA 1608/Mum/2025
. Shantilal Govind Patel (AY 2018-19)

ITA 1608/Mum/2025
. Shantilal Govind Patel (AY 2018-19) stamp on such transaction at the rate applicable on ready beckoner value determined by State Government. The assessee accordingly paid stamp duty on the basis of current ready reckoner value applicable on the date of registration agreement. During assessment, the assessing officer noted that there was a difference of Rs. 87.84.092/- vis-à-vis value declared by assessee and the value determined by stamp valuation authority. The assessee in response to show cause notice issued by assessing officer, explained that assessee has purchased property
/ flat in 2009 vide allotment letter dated 09.07.2009, copy of which was furnished.
The assessee made substantial part of payment in 2009 as there was a dispute and change in the government policy the construction work was not started till
2014. The agreement was entered in 2017 though flat was purchased in 2009. The assessee paid part payment by way of cross cheque in 2009. And it was explained that agreement value has to be considered from the year of payment i.e. in 2009. Despite recording all such facts, the assessing officer disregarded the submission of assessee and made addition of Rs. 87.84 lacs under section 56(2) of Income Tax Act. The copy of reply file before assessing officer with acknowledgement of ITBA portal is placed on record. The assessee also furnished the bank statement of assessee to substantiate his contention. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), action of assessing officer was confirmed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer in ex-parte proceedings. In fact notice of hearing under section 250 was not received by assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee further

ITA 1608/Mum/2025
. Shantilal Govind Patel (AY 2018-19)

4
No. 2261/Mum/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and in Pinki Chetan Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA
No. 3629/Mum/2023 dated 27.02.2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the aforesaid cases held that when date of agreement, fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property is not the same as the date of registration, as per provision to section 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of this sub-clause if the assessee has paid part consideration thereof by way of account payee cheque or bank draft or by way of electronic mode. The assessee has paid substantial payment by way of cheque, therefore, no addition under section 56(2) is warranted. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the material available on record/ITBA system. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that his appeal may be accepted and addition under section 56(2) of Rs. 87,84,092/- may be deleted.
3. On the other learned Commissioner of Income Tax / Departmental Representative
(ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue submits order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. The assessee has not furnished his submission in response to various notices issued by ld.
CIT(A). The alleged payment in 2009 has not ben verified either by assessing officer or by ld. CIT(A). The assessing officer allowed video conferencing to the assessee, however, assessee failed to avail such opportunity. There is no written agreement by assessee with the builder in fixing the consideration of immovable

ITA 1608/Mum/2025
. Shantilal Govind Patel (AY 2018-19) property in 2009. The assessee has merely filed allotment letter dated 09.07.2009
and bank statement of alleged part payment of consideration. As alleged part payment has not been verified by lower authorities, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for passing the order afresh with the direction to assessee to furnish all such evidences.
4. In short rejoinder submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that allotment letter contained various terms and conditions, which was accepted by assessee.
The consideration was fixed at the time of issuing allotment letter to the assessee.
The payment of part consideration is clearly discernible from the statement in the bank book / pass book of assessee.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that during assessment, the assessing officer find that assessee has entered into agreement of sale for flat no. A-601, Om Shanti Kunj Building, Tilaknagar Chembur on 07.08.2009 with Aditya Enterprises. The assessee has shown sale consideration of flat at Rs.
35,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 22,90,000/- was made in advance. The stamp valuation authority / Sub