VIKAS BEDPRAKASH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 646/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 50C, including the tolerance limit under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), are curative in nature and retrospectively applicable. The difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was found to be 1.065%, which is below the 10% tolerance limit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 70,00,000/-. The stamp duty value was Rs. 70,74,519/-, resulting in a difference of Rs. 74,519/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this difference to the assessee's income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, holding that the amendment to Section 56(2)(x)(b) was not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase price of an immovable property can be added to the income of the assessee under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, especially when the difference is within the prescribed tolerance limit and the amendment is retrospective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 56(2)(x)(b),Section 50C,Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)

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.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vikas Bedprakash Pandey, vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. PAN/GIR No: ANWPP9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent by Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’],

dated 27.11.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of reassessment proceeding by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s.148A r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law.

2.

The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding difference between stamp duty value and purchase price as i

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →