JASHODA KHIMJI BHADRA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4997/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jashoda Khimji Bhadra against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an addition of Rs.8,60,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, alleging a discrepancy between the actual consideration paid for a property and its stamp duty value. The property was jointly purchased with M/s. Khimji Ladharam Bhadra (HUF), who also faced a similar addition. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the addition should be restricted to 50% in her hands, given the co-owner's acceptance of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773053 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPA NANDA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 147; 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4997/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Jashoda Khimji Bhadra, 102, Shubh Apt, Opp Kelkar College, 90 Feet Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai – 400081 PAN : ABVPB5569P ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai - 400051 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Rupa Nanda Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 24/09/2025 Date of Order - 26/09/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 16.06.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.8,60,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being the alleged difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration paid purchase of immovable for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4997/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 2 property, Without properly appreciating that: 1) The property was purchased jointly, and the entire difference has been added in the hands of the Appellant without apportionment to the joint owner, resulting in double addition. 2) The Appellant was not allotted the property at the date of the agreement, and therefore, the fair market value adopted by the Assessing Officer is incorrect. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant despite the Appellant's request for a hearing through video conferencing and without adjudicating the matter on merits.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and vide order dated 13.05.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) made an addition of Rs.8,60,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on the basis that the assessee has entered into transaction of purchase of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.93,37,500/-, whereas the value of said property according to stamp valuation authority was Rs.1,01,97,500/-. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to any of the hearing notices issued by the learned CIT(A). 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), by referring to the documents placed in the paper book filed by the assessee, submitted that the immovable property, being the flat, was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4997/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 3 purchased jointly by the assessee and M/s. Khimji Ladharam Bhadra (HUF) vide sale deed dated 31.03.2016. The learned AR further submitted that in the hands of the co-owner, i.e., M/s. Khimji Ladharam Bhadra (HUF), the Revenue has made an addition to the extent of 50% of the difference between the purchase cost and the stamp duty value, i.e., Rs. 4,30,000/-, vide order dated 29.05.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. The learned AR further submitted that the co-owner of the flat, i.e. M/s. Khimji Ladharam Bhadra (HUF) has accepted the 50% addition in its hands under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and has not challenged the same before the appellate forum. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed that the addition in the hands of the assessee be restricted to the balance 50% only. 8. Having considered the submissions and perused the material on record, we find merits in the submissions of the learned AR that only balance addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act can be made in the hands of the assessee, as in the hands of co-owner of the immovable property the Revenue has already made 50% addition. Such being the facts, even the learned Departmental Representative also did not object to the submission of the learned AR, as it is evident from the sale deed that the said flat was jointly purchased by the assessee and M/s. Khimji Ladharam Bhadra (HUF). Accordingly, we direct the AO to restrict the addition only to 50% of the difference in purchase cost and stamp duty value, i.e., to Rs. 4,30,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4997/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 4 9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/09/2025 Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 26/09/2025 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "