Section 56 valuation dispute over immovable property turns on operative date, provisos, and DVO reference.

ITAT Pune considered whether addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on transfer of immovable property was warranted and whether stamp duty value should be taken with reference to an earlier agreement date and payments made before the registered deed. The analysis focused on whether the property was effectively "received" for section 56 purposes and on the operation of the first and second provisos to that provision. The earlier agreement date was not treated as conclusively proved, but payment of additional compensation and sale consideration on 04.10.2014 was regarded as relevant for identifying the operative valuation date. The matter was remitted for recomputation in accordance with the correct date, the statutory provisos, and, if required, DVO valuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on transfer of immovable property was justified, and whether the stamp duty value had to be adopted with reference to the earlier agreement date and the payments made prior to the registered deed.

Analysis: The dispute centred on whether the assessees had "received" the property for the purposes of section 56(2)(vii)(b), and whether the first and second provisos to that provision could be applied. The earlier agreement date was not accepted as conclusively proved, but the record showed payment of additional compensation and sale consideration on 04.10.2014, which was treated as relevant for determining the operative date for stamp valuation. The Court also held that the Assessing Officer had to consider the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) and, if necessary, refer the matter to the DVO for valuation in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained on the basis adopted by the lower authorities, and the matter was sent back for recomputation in accordance with the correct date and statutory provisos.

---