BIHARI PARMANAND KANDHARI,MUMBAI vs. ACI, CIRCLE -23(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7925/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL ( (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the authenticity of the agreement, payments made, and then apply the stamp duty value as of the agreement date, considering a curative tolerance band.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,92,87,988/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, treating the difference between the registration value and the stamp duty value as income. The assessee contended that the agreement to sell was dated 18.10.2011, and payments were made then, entitling them to use the stamp duty value as of the agreement date.

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement or registration should be considered for addition under Section 56(2)(x), and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17/02/2026Pronounced: 23/02/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond his

Bihari Parmanand Kandhari Bihari Parmanand Kandhari was not the part of limited scrutiny. was not the part of limited scrutiny.

2.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.

2.

That on the facts and

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 →