DARSHINI AMIT SHARMA,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

ITA 1345/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 March 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which enhanced the limit from 5% to 10% for the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value of immovable property not to be considered as income, has been consistently held to be a curative amendment and therefore retrospective in nature by several ITAT decisions, including the one cited by the assessee in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that no contrary decision from a higher judicial authority was brought to its notice. Since the facts on record clearly showed that the difference between the actual consideration paid and the stamp duty value was less than 10% of the actual consideration, the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,10,600. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel that there was no case for making any addition. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it agreed with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no case for making any addition to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The addition made in the hands of the assessee was held to be not sustainable in law, and deletion of the addition was directed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Darshini Amit Sharma, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute concerns an addition of Rs. 7,10,600 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on the difference between the stamp duty value of an immovable property purchased by the assessee and the actual sale consideration. The property was purchased for Rs. 83,66,400, while its stamp duty value was Rs. 90,77,000. The AO treated the difference of Rs. 7,10,000 as income under Section 56(2)(x). The assessee argued that the difference was less than 10% of the consideration, and the AO rejected this, stating the limit was 5% for the impugned year, with the 10% limit introduced prospectively.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,10,600 made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law, considering the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration of an immovable property was less than 10% of the consideration. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the difference between the actual consideration and the stamp duty value was less than 10% of the consideration received. This argument was rejected by the AO, who stated that for the assessment year in question, only a 5% adjustment was permissible, and the 10% limit was introduced prospectively by the Finance Act, 2020, effective from April 1, 2021. The assessee further contended that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this specific ground. The assessee relied on the ITAT, Mumbai Bench decision in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO, which held the amendment increasing the limit to 10% to be curative and retrospective. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied on the order of the AO and did not present any contrary decision from higher judicial authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 250,Section 50C(1),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, BENCH

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, AR, Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 16/03/2026

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)") dated 30.09.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. ITA No.1345/SRT/2025 [Darshini Amit Sharma vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 -2-

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

"

1.

The ld. CIT(A) erred in

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 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →