RAGINI BHADAURIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9134/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that an advance payment was made through cheque by the assessee's predecessor in interest. The Tribunal held that according to the provisos to Section 56(2)(vii)(b), such a payment through a specified channel should be treated as the fair market value of the asset.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property, and the assessing officer invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to add the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value. This addition was upheld by the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value is justified when an advance payment was made through cheque by the predecessor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 03.02.2026Pronounced: 03.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) dated 19.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein, it is noticed at the outset that she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.13,44,519/- representing the difference between purchase price of the immovable property in question to the tune of Rs.19,38,081/- as against stamp value thereof amounting to Rs.32,82,600/-; respectively, in

4.

Faced with this situation, I hereby notice from a perusal of the case records that the original agreement regarding the purchase of capital asset in issue was accompanied by the advance payment through cheque to the tune of Rs.11,98,000/; by the assessee’s predecessor in interest Ms. Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of Sushant Golf city/developer, Lucknow (UP). This being the clinching factual position, it emerges that section 56(2)(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso(es) make it clear that such a payment made through specified channel is to be treated as the fair market value of the asset in question which squarely applies in the assessee’s favour. I accordingly delete the impugned addition of Rs.13,44,519/- in very terms.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →