MAYUR KANUBHAI SHAH ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 1992)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5600/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mayur Kanubhai Shah against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai. The dispute centered on the valuation of a property purchased by the assessee, which was assessed at a significantly higher fair market value for stamp duty purposes compared to the agreement value. The ITO added the difference to the assessee's income under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the assessee contested, claiming the property was rural agricultural land and thus exempt from this provision. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and remanded the matter for further verification of the property's nature.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831011 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHAV PATAWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 56

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.5600/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mayur Kanubhai Shah 43/44, Pushpa Milan Sophia College Lane, Off Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400026 PAN : AADPS0509H vs ITO, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rishav Patawari Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 13/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 19/01/2026 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 20/08/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai (for brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, date of order 19/12/2018. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased the property with a value of Rs.93,77,103/-. The fair market value of the property for stamp duty purpose was Rs.2,69,74,200/-. During the assessment proceeding the Ld. AO asked the assessee for explanation related to difference of agreement value and the stamp duty value of the property which will contravening provision of section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee complied & explained that the assessee purchased the said lad in nature rural agricultural land. So, the alleged section is not applicable for this land. Finally the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s explanation and added back the difference amount to Rs.1,75,97,097/- under section 56(2)(viib). The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 26, which has been taken on record. The Ld. AR also filed a “distance certificate” as additional evidence to substantiate the claim that the subject property is situated far beyond the municipal limits. It was contended that the land transacted by the assessee is in the nature of rural agricultural land and, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable. With reference to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted the said “distance certificate” as additional evidence in accordance with Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Ld. AR first drew our attention to the deed of purchase duly executed on 15.07.2015, annexed at APB pages 1 to 16, wherein the property is described as agricultural land. The Ld. AR further contended that the certificate issued by the DVO, bearing No. DVO-I/Mum/CGT/2021-22/378 dated Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah 11.02.2022, annexed at APB pages 63 to 69, also records the fair market value of the immovable agricultural land situated at village Jamalpada, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, and categorically determines the nature of the property as agricultural land (APB page 67). Without considering these evidences, the Ld. AO passed the order and confirmed the addition. 4. During the proceedings before the Bench, the Ld. AR, in further support of his submissions, stated that the distance certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, Sudhagad, specifies that the distance from Khopoli Nagar Parishad to Jambhulpada is 25 kilometres. The relevant documents are reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah 5. The Ld. DR argued and placed reliance on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. On consideration of the material placed before the Bench, we find that the assessee purchased the land vide a registered deed of purchase dated 15.07.2015. The assessee has placed reliance on the report of the DVO dated 11.02.2022, which supports the assessee’s claim that the land in question is in the nature of agricultural land. In order to further strengthen the submissions, the Ld. AR also filed a “distance certificate” before the Tribunal, which supports the applicability of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and remand the issue to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for due verification of the said document and for determining the nature of the land in accordance with law. From a perusal of the deed of purchase and the report of the DVO, the land has already been treated as agricultural in nature. However, for the limited purpose of verification of the additional evidence, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. JAO. Needless to say, the Ld. JAO shall duly consider the submissions of the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. JAO for this limited purpose. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 19/01/2026 Saumya Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.5600/Mum/2025 Mayur Kanubhai Shah Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/The Appellant , 2. Ůितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाडŊफाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "