2025 (3) TMI 807 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Addition Deleted as Property Purchase Price Difference Below 5% Exception Under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii)

Surajmal Mistry HUF Versus ITO, Ward-22 (3) (4), Mumbai

Surajmal Mistry HUF Versus ITO, Ward-22 (3) (4), Mumbai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are: Whether the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase value of the properties should be added to the income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether the Assessee's submission regarding the estimated nature of the stamp duty valuation and the application of different rates for office and parking areas should be accepted. Whether the Assessee is entitled to any relief based on the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) and Section 50(c) of the Act, despite their non-applicability to the assessment year in question.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The case revolves around Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the addition of the difference between the purchase value and the stamp duty value of a property as income from other sources if the purchase value is less than the stamp duty value. The provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) and Section 50(c), although not directly applicable to the assessment year in question, provide a framework for exceptions where the difference is within a specified threshold.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court considered the Assessee's argument that the stamp duty valuation was estimated and that different rates should apply for office and parking areas. The Court noted that the Assessee himself submitted the stamp duty value as per the ready reckoner of 2010, which was accepted by the Commissioner, leading to a reduction in the addition amount.Key evidence and findings:The Assessee purchased two commercial properties, and the Assessing Officer (AO) noted a discrepancy between the purchase price and the stamp duty value. The Assessee argued that the registrar's valuation was estimated and inconsistent in applying rates for different property areas. The Commissioner accepted the Assessee's ready reckoner values, reducing the addition amount from Rs. 28,85,923 to Rs. 17,81,145.Application of law to facts:The Court applied the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to determine the income addition. The Court also considered the Assessee's arguments and the Commissioner's acceptance of the ready reckoner values. Despite the non-applicability of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) and Section 50(c) for the assessment year, the Court took a lenient view based on the principles underlying these provisions.Treatment of competing arguments:The Assessee's argument regarding the estimated nature of the stamp duty valuation was partially accepted by the Commissioner, leading to a reduction in the addition amount. The Court further reduced the addition by considering the leniency principles from Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) and Section 50(c).Conclusions:The Court concluded that the Assessee's submission regarding the ready reckoner values was valid, and the addition should be reduced to Rs. 12,66,684, granting partial relief to the Assessee.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:The Court noted, 'The Assessee himself has submitted the stamp duty value of the property as per ready reckoner 2010 to the tune of Rs. 89,33,463/- for unit no.306 and Rs. 1,35,96,759/- for unit no.307, which was accepted by the Ld. Commissioner.'Core principles established: Acceptance of Assessee's submission regarding ready reckoner values can lead to a reduction in income addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Consideration of leniency principles from related provisions, even if not directly applicable to the assessment year, can influence the final determination.Final determinations on each issue: The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was reduced from Rs. 28,85,923 to Rs. 12,66,684, granting partial relief to the Assessee. The Assessee's argument regarding the estimated nature of the stamp duty valuation was partially accepted, leading to a reduction in the addition amount.