PRIYANKA SUDHIR PALSHETKAR,LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(2)(1),MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) considered the deduction claimed by the Assessee under chapter VIA of the Act, to the tune of Rs.1,41,796/- being the transaction carried out in immovable property and ultimately vide assessment order dated 12.04.2021, made the addition of Rs.6,18,770/- being differential amount between the value of the property as enshrined in the agreement/sale deed dated 28.06.2017 and the stamp value of the property, as per Stamp Valuation Authority.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said disallowance/addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the said addition by dismissing appeal of the Assessee and therefore the Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.

The Ld. D.R., at the outset, relied on the orders passed by the authorities below, however, not disputed a particular fact that the property as alleged has been transferred/sold by the “relative” of the Assessee, with whom transactions carried out, are protected or immuned from the rigors of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and therefore the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act under which addition has been made by the AO would not be applicable to the case of the Assessee, and thus, the addition under consideration is un-sustainable, specifically in view of the judgment by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in decided on 07.03.2025 titled as Chhaya Vasudeo Angne, Ward-28(1)(1) wherein the identical issue has been dealt with. Thus the addition is deleted by allowing appeal of the Assessee.

Thus, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.