2026 (7) TMI 1408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s 143(3) and penalty order passed under Section 270A of the I.T. Act. In the quantum appeal the assessee challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 97,63,000/- made u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only dispute in appeal is as to whether the valuation of property for the purpose of stamp duty to be considered as on the date of MOU/agreement for transfer of immovable property or the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement for the purpose of the provision of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was a tenant of Unit No. 17 at Bharti Bhavan, 4th floor, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, Stamp Duty Value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of sub-clause (x) of Section 56(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings had explained this to the A.O. and also during appellate proceedings, the same was explained before the Ld. JCIT(A). However, both the authorities failed to consider the submissions of the assessee in proper perspective and confirmed the addition. Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Abbas Fakhruddin V/s. ITO in ITA No. 8297/Mum/2025, dated 12th March, 2026, ....