JAVIDBHAI AHEMADBHAI MANSURI,PATAN V. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

ITA 1194/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, the proprietor of Aamil Surgical Hospital, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which sustained an addition of Rs.73,66,836 to his income for the Assessment Year 2020-21. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to a discrepancy between the purchase consideration of a property and its stamp duty value. The Tribunal examined the documents provided by the assessee, including the allotment letter and bank statements, and concluded that the addition was not justified as the transaction was completed in 2013, well before the cut-off date for the applicability of the said section.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793036 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: GANTA MANOJ KUMAR G.
• Keywords: Capital asset; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Competent authority
• Section: 56(2); 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1194/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri, Prop. Aamil Surgical Hospital, Subhadranagar, Near C.T. Point, Patan-384265 [PAN : AGNPM 6086 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Patan (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ganta Manoj Kumar G., CA Respondent by: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), relating to the Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the addition of Rs.73,66,836/- made u/s. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act is found to be on proper footing and in sustaining the same. The Id. CIT (A) has accordingly dismissed the appeal based on wrong statements that though the agreement was signed on 20-06-2013, appellant has not provided the details of payment to builder as on that date, and also the statement that the AO did not accept appellant's contentions as required documents were not produced before him. 2. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in law and on facts in ignoring the specific ground No.1 contesting AO's jurisdiction to take up issue other than the issue of investment for which the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny, without permission of competent authority, and wrongly stating that grounds No. 1 to 6 relate to addition made u/s. 56(2) (x) (b) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1194/Ahd/2025 Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have cancelled the assessment being without jurisdiction/authorization of competent authority, and ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.73,66,836/-. 4. It is therefore prayed that the orders of the lower authorities making/upholding the addition Rs.73,66,836/- may be cancelled.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3.1 The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny to enquire into the investment in properties. The Assessee has purchased a property for Rs.29,96,836/- which has been registered at a stamp duty value of Rs.1,03,63,816/- on 30.10.2018. Keeping in view the difference of Rs.73,66,836/- in the value of the property adopted by the assessee and the stamp duty authorities, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.73,66,836/- u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. 3.2 Before us, the assessee has submitted the advance paid in the year 2013 as under:- 3.3 The assessee has submitted allotment letter dated 20.06.2013 depicting sale of 2 BHK flat No.1203, in “B” Wing of 1148 Sq. Ft. for Rs.29,96,836/- and also the schedule of payments (Page No. 22 to 29 of the paper-book). On page No. 30 to 32 of the paper-book, the assessee has disclosed a bank statement reflecting the payments made through the bank account. These documents/evidences are well before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.4 In this background, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are examined. The same reads as under:- Sr. No. Date Amount (in Rs.) 1 13.06.2013 5,00,000/- 2 21.07.2013 5,00,000/- 3 22.07.2013 5,00,000/- 4 27.11.2013 3,71,000/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1194/Ahd/2025 Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– (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,— (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely:— (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to [ten] per cent of the consideration: Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause : Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed], on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: [Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA, the provisions of sub-item (ii) of item (B) shall have effect as if for the words \"ten per cent\", the words \"twenty per cent\" had been substituted;] (c) any property, other than immovable property,— (A) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1194/Ahd/2025 Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri Vs ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 4– (B) for a consideration which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration… ……” 3.5 Thus, on going through the provisions of the Act, since the assessee has entered into an agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the immovable property in 2013 and an amount of Rs.18,71,000/- have already been paid in the year 2013, i.e. a part has been paid by way of account payee cheques through a bank account, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 25.09.2025 **btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "