ISH BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7610/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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 held that the addition was made under Section 56(2)(x) which was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017, without any retrospective effect. Since the assessee acquired the asset on 06.06.2016, prior to the effective date of the amendment, the addition was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order for Assessment Year 2017-18. The lower authorities invoked Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act to add the difference between the actual purchase price and the stamp value of a capital asset as income from "other" sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2017, can be applied to an asset acquired by the assessee on 06.06.2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 56(2)(x),Section 56(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10758867882(1) dated 29.04.2025, 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.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 56(2)(x) of the Act to add the difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price of Rs.9,00,000/- and stamp value of the relevant capital asset of Rs.19,10,000/-, amounting to Rs.10,10,000/-, as income from “other” sources.

1.

Ish Bhatia 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the legislature has inserted clause (x) in section 56(2) in the Act vide Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 without any retrospective effect as per the relevant Explanatory Memorandum’s clause 33.6 thereto. It is reiterated that the assessee had acquired the asset in issue on 06.06.2016 only. The impugned section 56(2)(x) addition is deleted in very term therefore.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →