REBA ROY,COOCHBEHAR vs. A.O. WARD 2(1), COOCHBEHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a gift from a Class-I relative (mother) to the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not attracted, and the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased immovable properties for a value less than the stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee argued that the transaction was a gift from her mother, a Class-I relative, making Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable.
What were the issues?
Whether the purchase of immovable property for less than stamp duty value attracts Section 56(2)(x) when the transaction is a gift from a Class-I relative.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: September 30th, 2024 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 20.02.2024 for the AY 2020-21.
The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the validity of addition of Rs. 72,35,643/- made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act on the alleged ground that the I.T.A. No.: 721/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Reba Roy. assessee had purchased various immovable properties for a value which is less than the stamp duty value. 2.1. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the registered Gift Deed to submit that the alleged transaction was in fact the gift of immovable property by the mother of the assessee to the assessee vide registered Gift Deed No. I-3940 dated 15.05.2019. Since the aforesaid transaction was by the Class-I relative of the assessee i.e. mother of the assessee to the assessee, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not attracted in this case, hence, the impugned addition is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be deleted.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026