TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,36,000 made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under the head "Income from Other Sources" in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in respect of the difference between the agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property, without appreciating the true nature of the transaction and the supporting evidences placed on record. 3. Failure to Consider the Allotment Letter as a Valid Agreement: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disregarding the Allotment Letter, which duly records the consideration and binding terms of the transaction, and which constitutes a valid and enforceable agreement in the absence of a registered sale deed. 4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order without affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, despite the Appellant's repeated written submissions r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation petition. Going through the aforesaid facts following the judicial precedents in such matters, we are of the considered view that the prayer of assessee to condone the delay of 231 days, supported with sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the delay in filing of appeal has been condoned. 3. The sole issue in the present matter pertains to the date of stamp duty valuation of the property which the assessee had purchased in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs. 44,00,000/-, which was further added with certain development charges, society advance maintenance and other taxes. The property was allotted to the assessee vide allotment letter dated 11.12.2010. Further there were certain disagreement between the tenants of the property and the builder, therefore a substantial delay in construction and completion was taken place and therefore the property was completed in 2017, almost after seven years. Assessee also made certain payments towards the letter of allotment to the tune of Rs. 8,80,000/- at the time of issuance of allotment letter. Copy of payment receipts furnished before us. The assessee further made certain payments on 24.09.2011. The property was held in co-own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ni Bharat Kumar Ludhani v. NAFC, Delhi [ITA No. 1868/Mum/2022] dated 1/31/2024 4. Manjulaben Himmatlal Jain v. ITO [168 taxmann.com 673]" 5. Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta v. ITO [ITA No. 56/Mum/2021] dated 05.09.2022" 9. Per contra, the ld. SR. DR representing the revenue submitted that the date of stamp duty valuation as per section 56(2)(x)(b) should be the date of agreement and not the date of allotment. Further the allotment letter referred to by the assessee was not a registered document therefore the same should not be relied upon. Accordingly, the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) had rightly made / confirmed the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, the same, therefore deserves to be sustained. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and the decisions of ITAT, Mumbai relied upon by the assessee. The only issue before us is, whether for the purpose of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, the date of purchase of property for the purpose of stamp duty valuation should be date of allotment or date of agreement. On this issue, we refer to the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Pinstripe Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer authority that due to change in Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the builder was constrained to alter/amend the building plans and in view of the same the builder allotted another flat on a lower floor. We find that this fact was not disproved by the assessing officer neither by making any enquiry from the builder nor brought any material on record to controvert the claim of the assessee. The allotment letter issued to the assessee dated 26.04.2016 substantiate that booking of old flat no. 1601 and 1701 was replaced by flat no. 204 because of the circumstances of change in Development Control Regulation as discussed (supra) in this order. We have also perused the provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act applicable from A.Y. 2017-18, the relevant extract of the provision of section 56(2)(x) is reproduced as under: "Section 56(2)(x) Where any person receives, in any previous year from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 (a) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum, (b) any immovable property ....