KHUDBUDDIN DADEPIR PIRJADE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

The Captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 30.10.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]-National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment year 2018-19, first appeal being ag and second being a income. Issues involv same were heard consolidated order fo
2. Firstly, we take
6407/Mum/2024 fo proceedings. The gro under:-
“1. The Ld. Commi order of Assessing
(Rs. 34,26,000/- m stamp valuc rate a 56(2)(vii)(b) 56(2)( appreciating the fa
2. The Ld. Commis
1" proviso to sectio has failed to furn father pursuant to sale consideration assessee had filed vide letter dt: 27/6
3. The Ld. Commis that after the dem his son without a pursuant to the September, 2004 a prevailing during handed over, mere was done in the M wrongly invoked to nor possession is h
Khud
ITA Nos. 64

gainst the quantum of assessm against the penalty levied for ved in both the appeals being together and disposed off b r sake of convenience.
e up the appeal of the asses or A.Y. 2018-19 in relation unds raised by the assessee are ssioner of Income (Appeals) erred in u g officer wherein the addition of Rs.
minus Rs. 3,75,000/-) is made, being and agreement rate of the property pu
(x) as income from other sourc acts of the case.
sioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in on 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable nish the details of payment made by o agreement dated 13th September, of Rs. 3,75,000/- as per the modes s d the explanation and details showin
6/2023. ssioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed mise of his father, the property was tr any additional consideration on 1 M purchased agreement entered in and the sale consideration was on the the relevant period and also poss ely to get the clear title of the property
March, 2018. Therefore, section 56(2)(v o the facts of the case as neither paym handed over during the year.
dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
2
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
ent proceedings misreporting of interconnected, by way of this ssee in ITA No.
n to quantum e reproduced as upholding the 30,51,000/- difference in urchased, us ces, without n holding that as assessee y Appellant's
2004 being specified. The ng payments d to consider ransferred to March, 2018
n the year basis of rate session was y registration vii)(b)/56(2)(x) ment is made

craves leave to add, alter modify or d e or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
the facts of the case are that th e for the assessment year unde aring a total income of ₹2,07,20
ed for scrutiny based on inform value of an immovable property than the stamp duty valuatio s, the Assessing Officer issued see, seeking an explanation for se consideration of ₹3,75,000/-
,000/-. However, due to non-com the Assessing Officer treated t emed income under Section 56
he assessment under Section 1
Act on 26.03.2021. On furth before the learned CIT(A) that lly purchased by his father, wit
004 and the full payment of ₹3
g market value in the financial ted that his father passed away on 01.03.2018, the assessee duty, substituting the assessee argued that, in accordance wit e applicable in the financial ye dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
3
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
delete one or he assessee filed er consideration
00/-. The return mation indicating was reported at on. During the d a show cause r the difference
- and the stamp mpliance on the the difference of 6(2)(vii)(b) of the 143(3) read with her appeal, the the property in th an agreement
,75,000/- made year 2004. The on 22.07.2010, registered the e in place of his th Section 56(2), ear 2004 should be considered for the section. However, as original sale agreem evidence of payment appeal observing as u
“8.5. A plain readi receives any immo value of such prop shall be chargeabl sources". The appe sub section, the o stamp duty valuati provisions of the f amount of conside been paid by way bank draft or by account [or through on or before the d property. In the pr shown the paymen the section. It is ap was made in elec appellant has faile prescribed mode b before the appellat appellant to prove agreement dated clinking documenta contention cannot provisions of the s actual consideratio
8.6. In view of th reasonably conclud from other sources
56(2)(x)(b) of the Ac evidence. No infirm and the action of t
Khud
ITA Nos. 64

e purpose of determining the inc s the assessee failed to provide ment dated 30.09.2004 or a t via cheque, the learned CIT under :
ing of Section 56(2)(x)(b) shows that ovable property for a consideration, th operty as exceeds actual considerati le to income-tax under the head "Inco ellant's argument is correct as to the p original agreement value is to be c ion. However, as per the proviso 2 of t first proviso shall apply only in a ca eration referred to therein, or a par y of an account payee cheque or an a use of electronic clearing system th h such other electronic mode as may b date of agreement for transfer of su resent case, it is seen that the appe nt was made in modes presided as in apparent from the sale agreement tha tronic modes as mentioned in the p ed to prove that the payment was ma efore the date of agreement either bef te authority. No Such evidence was pr e that the payment was made bef
13/09/2004 in a mode prescribed ary evidence. As such, it is held that t be accepted and the AO is right in section 56(2)(x) for taxing the differen on and stamp duty valuation.
he above facts and detailed discussi ded that the nature of income received s and the Assessing Officer has taxed ct after considering both factual and mity is found in the order of the Ass he Assessing Officer treating the diffe dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
4
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
come under this e a copy of the any supporting
(A) rejected the any assessee he stamp duty ion, the same me from other roviso 1 to the considered for the section the ase where the rt thereof, has account payee rough a bank be prescribed), uch immovable ellant has not n proviso (2) of at no payment rovisions. The ade as per the fore the AO or roduced by the efore the sale by furnishing the appellant's n applying the nce amount of ion, it can be d being income d them rightly circumstantial sessing Officer erence amount between stamp d income from other s appeal in No. 2, 3
and hereby dismis
4. Before us, the paper book compris admitting additional included a bank sta made by the assess pointed out that pa cheque payment o submitted a certifica the immovable prop affidavits, the learn remanded to the As with the provisions o
5. We have consid relevant material on r the property was reg the stamp duty value
5.1 As per Section purchases an immo stamp duty value, th the purchase conside
However, the secon
Khud
ITA Nos. 64

duty value and actual sale conside sources warrants confirmation. Thus,
3 and 5 raised by the appellant are n sed.”
learned counsel for the assess sing pages 1-53 and filed an l evidence, annexed as page atement reflecting a payment see’s father. The learned coun age 55 of the paper book clea of ₹3,50,000/-. Additionally, ate from the relevant cooperativ perty is located. In light of t ned counsel requested that ssessing Officer for verification f Section 56(2) of the Act.
dered the rival submissions an record. The primary issue in dis gistered at a purchase considera e on the date of registration.
56(2)(x) of the Act, if an asses ovable property for a consider he difference between the stamp eration is deemed to be the ass d proviso to this section sta dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
5
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
eration, under the Ground of not acceptable see submitted a application for es 54-63. This of ₹3,75,000/- nsel specifically arly indicates a the assessee ve society where hese additional the matter be n of compliance d examined the spute is whether ation lower than ssee receives or ration below its p duty value and sessee’s income.
ates that if the consideration (or a cheque on or before stamp duty value a instead. In the pre agreement for the pro father in the financia cheque. Therefore, th proviso to Section 5
submitted additional remanded to the Asse we have examined executed on 01.03.20
31-34. However, upo
₹3,75,000/- paymen reference to an earlie the assessee conten maintains that no ad the time of regist circumstances, and i the additional eviden matter to the Assess with the law, after v necessary, the Asses cooperative society fr
Khud
ITA Nos. 64

part thereof) is paid via an e the date of the agreement fo as of the agreement date may esent case, the assessee con operty purchase was originally al year 2004, with the paymen he assessee claims compliance w
56(2)(x). In support of this, th l evidence and requested that essing Officer for reconsideratio the registered sale agreeme
018 and is available in the pape on perusal, we do not find any nt made by the assessee’s er purchase agreement. The lear nds that this omission was i dditional payment was made by tration. In view of the ab in the interest of substantive ju nce submitted by the assessee a sing Officer for a fresh decision verifying the documentary evide ssing Officer may conduct inq rom which the property was pur dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
6
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
account payee for transfer, the y be considered tends that the executed by his t made through with the second he assessee has t the matter be n. Furthermore, nt, which was er book on pages y mention of the father or any rned counsel for nadvertent and the assessee at ove facts and ustice, we admit and remand the n in accordance ence. If deemed quiries with the chased.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

Khud
ITA Nos. 64

the grounds raised by the asses es.
al in ITA No. 6668/Mum/2024
misreporting of the income ng. Since the appeal of the asse ing has already been restored ba
, therefore, we fill it appropriate o the assessing officer for nece oth the appeals of the assessee ced in the open Court on 18/0
/-

CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
7
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
ssee are allowed is in relation to e in quantum essee in relation ack to the file of e to restore this essary action in e are allowed for 03/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

////

Khud
ITA Nos. 64

BY ORDE

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu dbuddin Dadepir Pirjade
8
407 & 6668/MUM/2024
R, gistrar) umbai