TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,56,500/- made under Section 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order without considering the appellant's written submissions dated 13/04/2026 wherein she had submitted a valuation report of the same property determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer in the case of the co-owner (husband), which clearly established that the stamp duty value was excessive an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer added Rs.8,56,500, being 50% of the difference, under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.17,50,171 after making certain other additions as well. 4. In appeal, the assessee disputed the aforesaid addition and contended that the stamp duty value did not represent the fair market value of the property because of its condition, lack of amenities and locational disadvantages. It was specifically contended that, once the stamp duty valuation was disputed, the property ought to have been referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer ('DVO'). The learned CIT(A), however, held that section 50C applied to a seller whereas the assessee's case was governed by section 56(2)(vii)(b);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contra, the learned Departmental Representative ('learned DR') relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the addition had rightly been made with reference to the stamp duty value. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited controversy is whether the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs.38,43,000 and the purchase consideration of Rs.21,30,000 can be brought to tax under section 56(2)(vii)(b), insofar as the assessee's one-half share is concerned, despite the DVO having valued the very same property at Rs.21,30,000 in the proceedings of the other joint purchaser. 8. At the outset, we find that the reasoning of the learned CIT(A) that the valuat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsistently disputed the stamp duty value and asserted that it was higher than the actual fair market value. More importantly, the dispute has ceased to be a matter of mere assertion because the Department itself referred the same property to the DVO in the co-owner's proceedings. The DVO, by communication dated 23.10.2025, valued the entire property at Rs.21,30,000, which is the same as the consideration disclosed by the joint purchasers. 10. A property can have only one fair market value on the same valuation date. The assessee and her husband acquired the very same property under the same instrument, on the same date and for the same composite consideration. Their respective 50% interests cannot be assigned inconsistent values for the ....