Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 25,00,000, while the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 36,20,624. The AO made an addition of Rs. 11,20,624 under Section 50C. The assessee contended that the transfer was completed in FY 2014-15 and offered to tax in AY 2015-16.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of transfer in the earlier year during assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo verification.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 50C was rightly made for the impugned assessment year, or if the transfer had already taken place in an earlier financial year.
Sections Cited
50C, 147, 144, 144B, 2(47), 53A, 148, 142(1), 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC
Girish Bhalchandra Sathe vs Deputy Commissioner of Income 2104 Tower A Parkwoods, G.B. Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai Road Thane, Maharashtra- Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 400615 PAN:AAHPS4525R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr DR) Date of hearing : 10/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee preferred against the order of the NFAC Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 20.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income-tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 12.05.2023.
Girish Bhalchandra Sathe 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “
1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.11,20,624 u/s 50C, without appreciating that the consideration of Rs.25,00,000 was received in F.Y. 2014 15 and duly offered to tax in A.Y. 2015 16, and therefore no taxable transfer took place in A.Y. 2017 18.
2. The CIT(A) failed to consider that the transfer was completed in F.Y. 2014 15 within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income tax Act, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as possession and rights were transferred pursuant to the earlier agreement. Consequently, the addition made for A.Y. 2017 18 is untenable.
3. The CIT(A) failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C, which mandates adoption of stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement when consideration is received earlier through banking channels. The failure to apply this statutory requirement renders the addition unsustainable.
4. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the sale agreement, documentary evidence of earlier receipt, and the ITR for A.Y. 2015-16, all of which were submitted during the assessment and appellate proceedings.
5. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without directing the AO to make a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2), despite the appellant disputing the applicability of Section 50C and the valuation adopted by the stamp authority.
6. The CIT(A) erred in passing the order without granting an adequate opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
7. The assessment order and the appellate order are bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed, as the AO failed to examine the year of transfer under Section 2(47) r.w.s. Section 53A failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C and mechanically invoked Section 50C without following the statutory procedure.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, OR withdraw any ground of appeal on OR before the date of hearing.”
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case, nor was any application for adjournment filed. On perusal of the record, we find that the appeal was earlier fixed for hearing on Girish Bhalchandra Sathe 04.03.2026, on which date the Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) appeared and sought an adjournment. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to today’s date on the written request of the Ld. AR. However, on the date fixed for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above circumstances, and considering the nature of the dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) and on the basis of the material available on record.
We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs.36,20,624/-. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice regarding the difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value amounting to Rs. 11,20,624/-. However, during the assessment proceedings, none appeared before the Ld. AO to explain the said difference. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, passed an ex parte order and upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
From the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee has specifically contended that the sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- in respect of the property was received during the financial year 2014–15 and was accordingly declared in Assessment Year 2015–16. Therefore, according to the Girish Bhalchandra Sathe assessee, no taxable transfer took place during the impugned assessment year. The assessee has further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without properly considering the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act and without verifying whether any transfer had actually taken place during the impugned assessment year.
The Ld. DR, during the course of arguments, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has specifically observed at page 2, paragraph 4 of the appellate order that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR therefore supported the orders of the revenue authorities.
The assessee did not file any written submissions even after receipt of the hearing notices issued during the appellate proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue based on the material available on record. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under: “5.1 Ground: Vide this ground of appeal, the appellant states that the AO has erred in making addition of Rs.1120614 u/s 50C. 5.2 I have duly considered the facts of the case, assessment orderpassed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B and reply of the appellant filed during the appellate proceedings. Information was received by the AO from the office of the Pr. CCIT, based on DIT(I&CI) correspondence, that the appellant had sold an immovable property in F.Y. 2016-17 at a consideration lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 50C. The transaction details obtained from the Sub-Registrar's office revealed: Date of transaction: 16.03.2017 Declared sale consideration: Rs.25,00,000 Stamp duty valuation: Rs.36,20,624 Difference (Section 50C adjustment):Rs. 11,20,624
Girish Bhalchandra Sathe The appellant had not filed a return in response to notice u/s 148, nor had he complied with repeated notices u/s 142(1), reminders, and show-cause notices. The AO also obtained a copy of the registered sale deed directly from the Sub-Registrar in response to notice u/s 133(6), confirming the above figures. During the later stage of assessment, the appellant submitted a computation of income and a sale agreement relating to A.Y. 2015-16, asserting that the amount of Rs.25 lakh was received in an earlier financial year. The appellant, however, did not dispute that registration of the sale deed occurred in FY 2016-17, nor did he produce documentary evidence to show transfer of possession or rights in FY 2014-15.”
We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the impugned assessment year, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 11,20,624/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, being the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared sale consideration. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has contended that the transfer of the property did not take place during the impugned assessment year and that the transfer had already taken place during financial year 2014–15 relevant to Assessment Year 2015–16. According to the assessee, the revenue authorities erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C in the impugned assessment year. From a perusal of the appellate order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has specifically noted that the sale transaction was registered on 16.03.2017, as per the information obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar, and that the stamp duty value of the property was Rs. 36,20,624/-. However, during both the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence in substantiation of the contention raised in the grounds of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to place the relevant evidence on record in support of his claim. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo verification with regard to Girish Bhalchandra Sathe the addition of Rs. 11,20,624/- made under section 50C of the Act. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant documents and evidence in support of his claim before the Ld. AO, and the Ld. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the set-aside assessment proceedings. At the same time, the assessee is also directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings.