DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

ITA 1506/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessment of income for the year 2016-17 concerning the purchase of immovable property by the assessee, Dimple Rajesh Oswal. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made an addition to the assessee's income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase price of the property. The assessee contested this addition, arguing that the transaction was completed before the relevant financial year and thus should not attract the provisions of the amended section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal, referencing decisions from other benches and considering the timing of the transaction and payments, ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779702 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Asha Vijay vs ITO, Bajrang Lal Naredi vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEE DHOLE
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Gift; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 56(2)(vii)(b); 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dimple Rajesh Oswal 585-9. Sandesh Society, Salisbury Park, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune PAN : ABCPO7067J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bharat Shah Department by : Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT (through virtual) Date of hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14-10-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property of 66.91 sq.mtrs vide registered deed No.1440/2016 for Rs.46,55,000/- as against the stamp duty value / market value of Rs.57,31,291/-. He, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2023 was issued in Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 response to which the assessee filed her return of income on 20.04.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.8,84,680/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “4.6. Conclusion drawn. A show cause notice dated 13-11-2023 was issued to the assessee asking to file her objections on or before 20-11-2023. In the show cause notice, it is proposed to make addition the difference between the stamp duty value (Rs.57,31,291/-) and purchase value of the property (Rs.46,55,000/-) which works out to Rs.10,76,291/- as income under the head Income from Other Sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed the information in support of short term capital gain admitted on sale of flat (computation, customer ledger, first page of deed; possession certificate etc) but the assessee has not filed any objection against proposed addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on purchase of immovable property. Hence, it is presumed that the assessee has no objection to the proposed addition being the differential amount (Rs.10,76,291/-) between stamp duty value and purchase value of the immovable property purchased by the assessee vide purchase deed dated 1440/2016 in respect of acquisition of 66.91 sq meters of site/land.” 3. In appeal the CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4. CIT(A)'s Decision: 4.1. The appellant's given written submissions and grounds of appeal have been carefully perused. The assessee Smt. Dimple Rajesh Oswal has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, the AO has received the information that the assessee has purchased immovable property of 66.91 sq. meters vide registered deed No. 1440/2016 for Rs.46,55,000/- as against stamp duty value/market value of Rs.57,31,291/- during the year. The assessee has filed return of income vide Ack No 695230310290713 on 29/07/2013 declaring Income of Rs.5,65,610/-. The case was reopened for scrutiny and notice u/s 148 was issued on 20/03/2023. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 not filed any objection against proposed addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on purchase of immovable property. As there is difference in the computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) the AO has noticed that provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are attracted in the present case and the difference of Rs.10,76,291/- (Rs.57,31,291/- minus Rs.46,55,000/-) was added in the total income of the assessee. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted his reply which is reproduced as under. 1. The Assessee Dimple R. Oswal had paid booking amount in 2012 and completed payment for the purchase of the property in 2014. However, the purchase agreement was executed on 29-01-2016. We are attaching herewith ledger account of the same. (Annexure 2) and for cross verification we are attaching ledger confirmation received from the developer in the case of appellant. (Annexure 3) 2. The appellant at the time of sale of property wished to execute the sale deed directly between the purchaser and the developer. But as the developer did not agree with the same, the appellant had to first register the purchase deed with the developer and then sale deed was executed between the appellant and the purchaser. 3. The appellant had purchased property in 2012 for Rs.46,55,000/-, but the registration of purchase deed was not made in the same year itself. The purchase deed was registered by the appellant in 2016 and accordingly stamp duty value of 2016 was entered on purchase deed amounting to Rs.57,31,291/-. 4. In case, the purchase deed had been registered in year 2012 itself the stamp duty value of the property would have been Rs.28,87,167/- (Rs.43,150/- per sq. mt. *66.91sq. mt.) We have attached herewith the rates of ready reckoner applicable to the property under consideration. (Annexure 4) Also, index II of the property is attached for considering the area. (Annexure 5) 5. We have computed capital gain considering the actual purchase value and sale value as per the registered deeds. Hence, indirectly the difference amount has been taken into consideration as capital gain. We are attaching herewith computation sheet for the return filed for the AY 2016-17 (Annexure 6) 6. Here the assessing officer has considered the difference between the sale value disclosed in the sale deed vis-à-vis determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, as income in the hands of the assessee and brought it to tax u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. However, Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has become operative from FY 2014-15, in other words, in AY 2015-16. If it is construed that the assessee has possessed the house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 purchase price. Similar decision was taken in case of ITAT Kolkata branch in case of Asha Vijay vs ITO in ITA No.401/KOL/2023, where it has been laid down that if transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 then Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will not be applicable upon the purchasers. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and addition made was deleted. 4.3 According to the Assessing Officer, section 56(2)(vii)(b) is attracted in the present case and the appellant has not provided any concrete evidence for adopting stamp value of the property at Rs.57,31,291/-. The appellant has paid consideration of Rs.46,55.000/- and the stamp value of the property was worked out to Rs.57,31,291/- by the AO. As per the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b): (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before 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, - (i) without consideration the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration; Provided that where the date of the agreement on the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of the registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause; Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property. 4.4 This section came into the effect om 01.04.2014 as per the finance act 2013. Therefore the section raised by the appellant that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not attracted in her case, is hereby ejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly added difference in the computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value (as claimed) based on detailed factual and legal evidence. The evidence furnished by the appellant before me in the form of reply do not carry the factual weight and are not found to be substantial enough to controvert the assessing officer’s findings. Consequently, relating to the issues stands dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in reopening the case, by issuing notice on 20.03.2023 under section 148 in person by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the same is required to be issued in a faceless manner as per Notification No.18 dated 29.03.2022 and hence the assessment based on notice issued without jurisdiction deserves to be cancelled. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LEGAL GROUND OF APPEAL 2) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in confirming the assessed income at Rs.1960971 as against the returned income at Rs.884680. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 3) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in considering the sum of Rs.1076291 as income from other sources, being the difference between the ready reckoner rate and actual consideration paid for the purchase of the residential property. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 4) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law in arriving at the conclusion that assessee has purchased property at a price which is less than the ready reckoner rate for the year 2016 when the property was actually purchased in 2012 and registration was effected in 2016 and consequently the ready reckoner rate available on Index II pertains to year 2016 and on this basis a sum of Rs.1076291 is made taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 5) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in computing the aggregate income tax liability at Rs.1937463 due to an arithmetical error by including twice the amount of addition in income from other sources. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 6) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in levying interest under section 234A, 234B. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 7) The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset did not press ground No.1 for which the Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly the same is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 6. So far as the other grounds are concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made two-fold arguments. The first argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that while the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has determined the total income at Rs.19,60,971/-, however, in the computation statement he has determined the same at Rs.31,97,261/- which is not correct. 7. The second plank of his argument is that the assessee has purchased the property during the year 2012 for a consideration of Rs.46,55,000/- but the registration of purchase deed was not made in that year. The purchase deed was registered by the assessee in 2016 and accordingly the stamp duty value of 2016 was entered in purchase deed amounting to Rs.57,31,291/-. He submitted that if the deed has been registered in the year when the property was actually purchased, the stamp duty value of the property would have been lower than the stated amount of Rs.57,31,291/-. Referring to the ready reckoner rate he submitted that had the purchase deed been registered in 2012 itself, stamp duty value of the property would have been Rs.28,87,167/-. He submitted that the assessee had made initial booking in 2012 and substantial amount has been paid before 31.03.2013 and only the registration of purchase deed was kept pending. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 8. Referring to the decision of the Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO vide ITA No.327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020 for assessment year 2014-15, he submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal. In that case the agreement for purchase of property was entered with a prospective seller in financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 at which time the new law did not come into play. It was claimed that the purchase consideration was duly paid at the time of agreement in financial year 2011-12 and the purchase was de facto completed except for the formality of registration. It was accordingly submitted that the transactions entered into prior to financial year 2013-14 would be governed by the pre-amended provision which triggers the applicability of such provision only where there is a total lack of consideration and does not cover a case of inadequacy in purchase consideration. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. 9. Referring to the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asha Vijay vs. ITO vide ITA No.401/KOL/2023 order dated 09.06.2023 for assessment year 2015-16, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have become operative from financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. It has been held that if the assessee has possessed the house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the provisions of Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. He submitted that since in the instant case the assessee had made the initial booking in the year 2012 and an amount of Rs.34,56,438/- out of total consideration of Rs.46,55,000/- has been paid before 31.03.2013, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be set aside. 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 11. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act made addition of Rs.10,76,291/-, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. I find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have also been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee on the basis of allotment letter determining the cost price at Rs.47,97,557/- has made substantial payment of Rs.34,56,438/- before 31.03.2013 and merely the registration was not done, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 12. I find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The contents of the allotment letter dated 22.02.2012 issued by Gini Citicorp Realty LLP read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 13. The above allotment letter shows that the assessee was allotted a flat bearing No.301 on 3rd floor of Building ‘GINI VIVIANA’, situated at Balewadi, Pune admeasuring total area of 720 sq.ft. carpet + 105 sq. ft. terrace along with one open & one covered car parking space for a total consideration of Rs.47,97,557/-. A perusal of the details of payments made by the assessee shows that the assessee has made payment of Rs.34,56,438/- before 31.03.2013, the details of which are as under: Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 14. Thus, on the basis of the allotment letter dated 22.02.2012 agreed by Gini Citicorp Reality LLP and the assessee, the assessee has made substantial payment of the agreed amount and only the formality of registration was pending. 15. I find the Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO (supra) while deciding a similar issue has observed as under: “6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue. In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without consideration, the provisions of pre-amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would apply. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance Act, 2013 and made applicable to AY 2014-15 onwards. As per the amended provisions, the scope of substituted provision was expanded to cover purchase of immovable property for inadequate consideration as well. It is alleged on behalf of the Revenue that the amended provision will apply in view of the fact that registration has been carried out during the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15 where the amended law came into force. The assessee, on the other hand, seeks to claim that his case would be covered by pre-amended provision in view of the fact that agreement for purchase Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 of the property was entered into with the prospective seller in FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 at which time the new law did not come into play. It was claimed that the purchase consideration was duly paid at the time of agreement in FY 2011-12 and the purchase was de facto completed except for the formality of registration. It was thus submitted that the transactions entered prior to the FY 2013-14 would be governed by the pre-amended provision which triggers the applicability of such provision only where there is a total lack of consideration and does not cover a case of inadequacy in purchase consideration. 7. We find merit in such plea advanced on behalf of the assessee. It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amended provisions will thus apply and therefore the Revenue is debarred to cover the transactions where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged. We thus find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions made under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and restore the position claimed by the assessee.” 16. I find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asha Vijay vs. ITO (supra) while deciding a similar issue has observed as under: “7. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. The assessee has put reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shimbhu Mehra reported in [2016] 236 Taxmann.com 561 (Allahabad). In this judgment an identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The question is what is the point of time it is to be construed that transfer has taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. According to the Hon'ble High Court if possession of a property is being taken then, it is to be construed that transfer has taken place for the purpose of Income Tax Act. In the case in hand, the possession was taken by the assessee on 09.01.2013. It means transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 and if that be so then no deemed gift is taxable in the hands of the assessee. Before adverting to the other decisions referred by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to note following observation of the Hon'ble High Court: “12. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(47) of the Act states that the transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes the extinguishment of any rights therein. In Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 365 1TR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the date on which the agreement for sale was executed could be considered the date on which the property was transferred. The Supreme Court held that when an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property is executed, a right in personam is created in favour of the vendee and when such a right is created in favour of the vendee, the vendor is Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 restrained from selling the said property to someone else because the vendee gets a legitimate right to enforce a specific performance of the agreement. The Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 2(47)(ii) of the Act held that if a right in respect of any capital asset is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone else, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. The Supreme Court held that once an agreement to sell is executed in favour of some person, the said person gets a right to get the property ' transferred in his favour and, consequently, some right of the vendor is extinguished. 13. Explanation 2 to Section 2(47) of the Act was added by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect on 1.4.1962 and, consequently, the said provision would be applicable. The said explanation clearly provides that transfer of an asset includes disposing of or parting with an asset by way of an agreement. 14. In the light of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that the moment an agreement to sell is executed between the parties and part consideration is received, the transfer for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act takes places and computation under Section 48 of the Act will start accordingly, for the purpose of calculating the capital gains under Section 45 of the Act. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the transfer of the property took place in the year 2001 when the provision of Section 50C of the Act was not in existence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph no. 6 to 7 is worth to note which read as under: “6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue. In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without consideration, the provisions of pre-amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would apply. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance Act, 2013 and made applicable to AY 2014- 15 onwards. As per the amended provisions, the scope of substituted provision was expanded to cover purchase of immovable property for inadequate consideration as well. It is alleged on behalf of the Revenue that the amended provision will apply in view of the fact that registration has been carried out during the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15 where the amended law came into force. The assessee, on the other hand, seeks to claim that his case would be covered by pre-amended provision in view of the fact that agreement for purchase of the property was entered into with the prospective seller in FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 at which time the new law did not come into play. It was claimed that the purchase Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 consideration was duly paid at the time of agreement in FY 2011-12 and the purchase was de facto completed except for the formality of registration. It was thus submitted that the transactions entered prior to the FY 2013-14 would be governed by the pre-amended provision which triggers the applicability of such provision only where there is a total lack of consideration and does not cover a case of inadequacy in purchase consideration. 7. We find merit in such plea advanced on behalf of the assessee. It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amended provisions will thus apply and therefore the Revenue is debarred to cover the transactions where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged. We thus find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions made under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and restore the position claimed by the assessee.” 9. In the light of the above, if we peruse the facts of the present case then it would reveal that originally the assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of the above flat with the developer in 2010. She has made complete payments up to October 2012, thereafter, she got the possession on 09.01.2013. She installed her electricity connection in her name. All these factors would indicate that transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act had completed. Only Conveyance Deed has been registered during the accounting period relevant to AY 2015-16. Once it is construed that transfer has been completed in the year 2013 itself then no deemed gift u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is to be determined in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition.” 17. In the light of the above decisions cited (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the assessee was allotted the flat on 22.02.2012 and substantial payments were made before 31.03.2013. Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made by him by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 18. The next grievance of the assessee is that as against the assessed income at Rs.19,60,971/-, the Assessing Officer in the computation statement has determined Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 the same at Rs.31,97,261/- thereby making some other addition. A perusal of the final computation of taxable income as per assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.19,60,971/-, the details of which are as under: 1 Income as per Return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 8,84,680 2 Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) 8,84,680 3 Variation in respect of issue of (if any) addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) 10,76,291 4 Variation in respect of issue of (if any) 0 5 Total Income / Loss determined 19,60,971 19. However, a perusal of the computation sheet shows that the Assessing Officer has determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,97,261/-, the details of which are as under: Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 20. I fail to understand as to how the Assessing Officer in the computation statement has made addition of Rs.24,45,761/-. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to verify the record and determine the correct income by rectifying the order. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th October, 2025. Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 14th October, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No.1506/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 13.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 14.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "