NEXT ESTATE & PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 460/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Next Estates & Projects Private Limited, a builder and developer, appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 3,47,27,843 to the assessee's income under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was based on the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration of two flats sold by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO and NFAC did not adequately consider the rectified agreements which corrected the area measurements of the flats sold, leading to a dispute over the correct application of section 43CA. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and remanded the issue of valuation back to the AO for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2024
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, ACIT vs. Rajul Constructions, Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Brij Mohan & Ors v. Sugra Begum and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL; OM
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 43CA; 133(6); 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 460/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Next Estates & Projects Private Limited 301, 3rd Floor, Kohinoor Building, Off Linking Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AACCP2120M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. Shri Om Kandalkar Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 53, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal and has also filed additional grounds which are as follows: Grounds of Appeal: 1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the \"NFAC'] erred in passing the order dated 22/09/2023 upholding the assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2 order passed under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'] without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the order passed by the NFAC is unjust. Hence, the same may be quashed and set aside as the NFAC failed to consider that the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition to WIP account of Rs. 3,47,27,843/- being contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity. 1. The NFAC erred in ignoring the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer Mumbai has erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,47,27,843/- u/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by wrongly computing the areas of both the flats on assumption based on a report of the Income Tax Inspector (who is not an architect or a person qualified to do so) who has not conducted a joint measurement of the flats with the appellant or any qualified person and without measuring Unit No. 101 & D-6/7. 2. The NFAC erred in confirming the actions of the Ld. A.O. who inspite of knowing the fact that the rectified agreements were executed as the area mentioned in the original agreements were incorrect stated so as to bring them in line with the actual areas and made an addition of Rs. 3,47,27,843/-. Further, the reply and submission of details in response to notice u/s 133(6) by the purchaser of unit No. 101 specifies the details as mentioned in the rectified agreement and hence the same should have been accepted. With regard to unit No. D 6/7 the appellant were not informed that the notice u/s 133(6) was returned, unserved. The rectified agreements would have bearing in computing the difference between the market value and agreement value for the purpose of section 43CA of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The NFAC disregarded the fact that there were circumstances which warranted the rectification of agreements and that the same were made after verification and duly registered by the appellant and buyer and hence reflect the correct position of area as confirmed by both the parties, the area as mentioned in the BMC approved plan of 512 sq. ft only is saleable and sold and the other area being the multipurpose room and open terrace was common building area was not sold. 4. Further, the flat No. 101 has a carpet area of 66 sq.ft. as per the BMC approved area and on physical measurement is 91 sq.ft. to make the same compliant to feng shui as per the purchaser's requirements and hence the sale deed is made accordingly. The society office on the 1st floor is the common are of all the members and not sold by the appellant alongwith the area sold of 91 sq.ft. and hence the same cannot considered. The appellant has never stated that the multipurpose room from the 2nd to the 5th floor have not been sold but have stated that the multipurpose room on 6th floor has not been sold and is a common society area to be used as fitness and recreation areas as original fitness centre on 1st floor has been sold as unit 201.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 3 5. Furthermore, the rectification agreement does not require stamp duty as there no increase in value but infact a reduction and hence no stamp duty was payable on the same. 6. Hence the additions of Rs. 3,47,27,843/- to be deleted in toto.” Additional Grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. erred in invoking the provisions of section 43CA with respect to the transactions of sale which took place on 29/06/2013 and 29/10/2013. The addition of Rs.3,47,27,843/- is made by invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said section was introduced into the Act by Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01.04.2014. Thus, the impugned addition amounting to Rs.3,47,27,843/- u/s 43CA of the Act is unsustainable, unwarranted, and therefore, deserves to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the initial payments aggregating to Rs.30,00,000/- towards flat No.6/7, Next Residency were received by the Appellant on 13.05.2011 and hence, the stamp duty value of the said flat as on the said date shall be taken as the full value of the consideration in terms of section 43CA(3) r.w.s. 43CA(4) of the Act. Hence, the impugned addition of Rs.3,12,68,812/- made u/s 43CA of the Act towards the said flat is unjustified, unlawful, and bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to the grounds raised above, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in passing the impugned order without appreciating that once the Appellant objects to the valuation of the property as adopted by Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer is bound to refer the matter for valuation to the DVO in terms of section 43CA(2) r.w.s. 50C(2) of the Act. Hence, the said appellate order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjust, in contravention of the provisions of law in force and therefore bad in law.” 3. The brief facts are that assessee company is engaged in the business of builders, developers and realtors and had filed its return of income dated 31/10/2014 declaring total income at Rs. 2,43,586/- and the same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 4 observed that assessee had sold two flats at Flat No.101 and duplex Flat No. D- 6/7 in its project called “Next Residency” located at Bandra, Mumbai and had offered the sale consideration received to tax. The assessee then rectified its original agreement which details are tabulated herein under: - S.No. Unit No. Persons to whom sold Date of regd. Agreement Sales Consideration Stamp duty value Difference between the stamp duty valve and sales consideration Date of rectified agreement 1. D-6/7 Mubin Tahlikar, Tasneem Mubin Tahlikar 29.10.2013 17000000 39634000 22634000 29.3.2014 2. 101, first floor Shaikh Tanveer Ahmed; Sanober Tanveer Shaikh 29.6.2013 3000000 4915000 1915000 21.9.2016 4. The ld. AO sought for explanation as to the reason for rectification of the original agreement and also as to the applicability of Section 43CA of the Act that the stamp duty value of these properties as per the original agreement was more than the sale consideration received by the assessee. After duly considering the submission of the assessee, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.3,47,27,843/- being the difference amount as per the stamp duty value and the sale consideration received by the assessee u/s.43CA of the Act, thereby determining total income at Rs.3,49,71,429/- vide assessment order dated 29/12/2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 5 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide order dated 29/09/2023 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned addition on the grounds mentioned above. 7. Assessee has raised additional grounds and the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the additional grounds be admitted. 8. After duly considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the same goes to very root of the case and further it does not require any further enquiry as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 and therefore deem it fit to admit the said grounds for adjudication. 9. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee stated at the bar that the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is not pressed. Therefore, the same requires no adjudication. As far as additional ground no. 2 is concerned, the assessee has challenged the ld. CIT(A)’s order in not considering the fact that initial payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- towards Flat No. 6/7 was received by the assessee on 13.05.2011 for which the stamp duty value should be taken on the said date in accordance with Section 43CA(3) r.w.s. 43CA(4) of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee commenced his arguments stating that there was no requirement of a written agreement or contract of sale Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 6 of immovable property and even an oral agreement is said to be a valid agreement on the fact that the assessee has received the initial payment by cheque payment based on which the assessee has issued an allotment letter dated 05.10.2013. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee and the purchaser duly entered into a sale agreement dated 29.10.2013 were the assessee has acknowledged the advance payments received by the assessee from the buyers on 13.05.2011. The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of Section 43CA(3) and 43CA(4) of the Act would be applicable in assessee’s case where the date of agreement fixing a value of consideration should be taken for the purpose of determining the stamp duty value when the date of registration is not the same as the date of agreement. The ld. AR further stated that Section 43CA(4) emphasizes that any consideration or part consideration should have been received by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement which has been complied with by receiving part consideration by cheque payment. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of ACIT vs. Rajul Constructions [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1261 (Jabalpur – Trib.) and in the case of Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2024] 167 taxmann.com 385 (Pune-Trib.), were on identical facts the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The ld. AR also argued on the additional ground no. 3 without prejudice that the assessee has challenged the action of the ld. AO in determining the stamp duty value without considering the fact that the buyers have received their flats Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 7 as per the carpet area specified in the rectified agreements as against the original agreements which was inadvertently mentioned as ‘built-up area’ instead of ‘carpet area’. The ld. AR further contended that the ld. AO had estimated the market value by relying on the report of the IT Inspector which was merely on the basis of the physical inspection and enquiry from neighboring flats instead of referring the same to the DVO for determining the value. The ld. AR stated that even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has raised the objection and the same was not considered by the lower authorities. The ld. AR prayed that the same may be refereed for valuation to the DVO as per the provisions of Act. 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue on the other hand controverted the said fact and contended that the assessee has not substantiated why the original agreement was rectified by the subsequent agreements with cogent evidences. Further, the ld. DR contended that the report of the IT Inspector is evidence to show that the buyers of the flats where in possession of larger area than that specified in the rectified area and that the assessee itself has agreed to the same that the larger area were sold as per its submission before the ld. AO dated 26.12.2016 and that the said flats and common areas were subsequently modified. The ld. DR also reiterated the findings of the lower authorities that the evidence filed by the assessee are only self-serving and relied on the order of the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 8 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee who is a builder and developer has sold two flats in its project named “Next Residency” to Shri Mubin Tahlikar, Tasneem Mubin Tahlikar and another property to Shaikh Tanweer Ahmed and Sanober Tanveer Shaikh vide registered agreement dated 29.10.2013 and 29.06.2013 which was subsequently rectified vide rectified agreement dated 29.03.2014 and 21.09.2016 respectively. The assessee’s contentions was that the rectification of the agreements were due to the error that had crept-in in stating the ‘carpet area’ to be ‘super built-up area’ were in one agreement, 1552 sq. ft. was the super built- up area and the carpet area was only 500 sq. ft. as per the approved plan dated 12.10.2010. Further, in another agreement it was 150 sq. ft. which was the super built-up area instead of the carpet area which was 91 sq. ft. as per the approved plan. Due to the discrepancy in the extent of the carpet area sold with that of the carpet area as per the approved plan, the ld. AO sought for clarification from the assessee who then reiterates that the carpet area of the units sold was much lesser than that which was mentioned in the original agreement where the same was with reference to the super built up area which included the common amenity areas consisting of common passage, stilts, podium, staircase, lifts, etc. which is not sold to any of the buyers. It was further stated that the assessee has calculated the super built-up area as pro rata which is calculated at 130% of ostensible carpet area for one property and 60% for the other as per the approved plan. The ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 9 had deputed an Income Tax Inspector (ITI) to examine the same and to furnish the report on the same. Notice u/s. 133(6) were also issued to the purchasers of the two properties where one notice was returned unserved and no reply was filed for the other. Based on the report filed by the Income Tax Inspector (ITI) dated 16.12.2016, the ld. AO held that the carpet area specified by the assessee was false and the assessee has not constructed the building as per the approved BMC plan and that there was no fitness center existing in the building as alleged by the assessee were the Income Tax Inspector (ITI)’s report revealed that the society office and the fitness center was clubbed together and sold to one buyer. The ld. AO then proceeded to make an addition on the difference in the stamp duty value and the sale consideration received by the assessee as per the original agreement holding that the area specified in the rectified agreement is also incorrect and that execution of the rectified agreement was merely to attract the provision of Section 43CA, for the reason that the assessee has not rectified the sale agreements executed prior to 01.04.2013 and prior to A.Y. 2014-15 where Section 43CA was not applicable. Further, it is also pertinent to point out that the assessee’s claim that only in these agreements there has been an error mentioning super built up area instead of carpet area was not accepted by the ld. AO. The ld. AO also hold that the assessee has rectified these two agreements for the purpose of considering only the carpet area instead of super built up area mentioned in the original agreement and that these agreements were also unregistered. The ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 10 interprets the provision of Section 43CA that it does not make reference to ‘carpet area’ of the asset rather the same is transfer of asset (land or building or both) comprising of the actual carpet area of the flats and the right to use common amenities as per the approved plan. The ld. AO rejects both the original agreement as well as the rectified agreement and determines the carpet area of flat no. 101 and duplex flat D 6/7 as per the approved plan. The ld. AO makes an addition u/s. 43CA of the Act on the difference in the stamp duty value determined by her. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that there cannot be any possibility of the two buyers stating that they had bought the property with area lesser than what was specified in the original agreement when the same has been disputed by the report of the Income Tax Inspector (ITI) evidencing that the buyers were in possession of larger area and further the assessee has itself affirmed that certain modifications have been carried out in the said flats and the common areas. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the real estate being very lucrative, the builder cannot put the buyer in possession of extra space than what was agreed upon unless the builder has expressly sold the area as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the confirmation given by the said buyers are self- serving were they have categorically mentioned that they did not get any refund from the builder for the difference in the area between the original and the rectified agreement. The ld. CIT(A) also was not convinced with the arguments Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 11 of the assessee that all the buyers had unilaterally made the alterations which was beyond the control of the assessee without its concurrence were the same is supported by the fact that even before obtaining the occupation certificate, the extra spaces were sold to the prospective buyers. 12. In the above factual matrix of the case, the issue that are to be adjudicated upon is whether Section 43CA(3) and 43CA(4) shall be applicable in the present case in respect of advance received in earlier years, for which the ld. AR for the assessee argued extensively stating that the said provisions was applicable in assessee’s case by relying on the decision of the coordinate benches in the case of Rajul Constructions (supra) and Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. (supra). For adjudication of the said issue it is pertinent to reproduce the provision of Section 43CA herein below for ease of reference: “43CA. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer: Provided that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed one hundred and ten per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration: Provided further that in case of transfer of an asset, being a residential unit, the provisions of this proviso shall have the effect as if for the words \"one hundred and ten per cent\", the words \"one hundred and twenty per cent\" had been substituted, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely: — Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 12 (i) the transfer of such residential unit takes place during the period beginning from the 12th day of November, 2020 and ending on the 30th day of June, 2021; (ii) such transfer is by way of first-time allotment of the residential unit to any person; and (iii) the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer does not exceed two crore rupees. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1). (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub-section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received 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 the asset. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, \"residential unit\" means an independent housing unit with separate facilities for living, cooking and sanitary requirement, distinctly separated from other residential units within the building, which is directly accessible from an outer door or through an interior door in a shared hallway and not by walking through the living space of another household. 13. On a bare perusal of the sub-Section (3) and (4) of the Act where it has been stated that when the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of asset and the date of registration on transfer are not the same then the value on the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration has to be considered for the purpose of determining the stamp duty value subject to the condition that the consideration has been received by an account payee cheque or bank draft or such other mode on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset. The case of the revenue is that the original date of the registered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 13 agreement was on 29.10.2013 and 29.06.2013 which is prior to the insertion of the provisions of Section 43CA and that the intention of the assessee to enter into a rectified agreement was for the purpose of attracting the said provision in assessee’s case. Even assuming that the assessee has entered into a rectified agreement for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 43CA as alleged by the revenue, it has to be noted that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) which was inserted by the Finance (ii) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 is identically worded in which the first proviso states that when the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same then the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of determining the stamp duty value and the second proviso states that the mode of payment towards consideration and part consideration has to be by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property though the said provisions applies in case of buyer and seller respectively. From this it is evident that the intention of the legislature was to always consider the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the stamp duty value of the said property when the date of transfer is on a subsequent date. 14. Both the lower authorities have not disputed the date of receipt of the advance payment received by the assessee which was on 13.05.2011 which was made by Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 14 cheque payment which is a condition precedent for determination of the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement fixing the consideration. The same was not decided by the ld. AO, for the reason that she has held the original and the rectified agreement of transfer to be unreliable. We find justification in the arguments enhanced by the ld. AR that the stamp valuation as on the date of the receipt of the part consideration received by the assessee has to be considered and not the date of transfer even in the absence of the written agreement, for the reason that the proviso only emphasizes that consideration or part consideration has been received by any mode other than cash either on or before the date of agreement for the transfer of the immovable property which is evident that execution of a written agreement is not a mandatory condition to attract the said provision but only the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration is specified which could imply that the same can be a written or oral agreement entered into between the parties towards which a part consideration is received. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan & Ors v. Sugra Begum and Others (1990) (004 SCC 0147) (SC), wherein it has been held that there is no requirement of law for an agreement or contract of sale of an immovable property to be in writing provided the assessee establishes the fact that there was an agreement which has fixed the consideration for the property towards which the parties have advanced payment either in full or in part towards the said consideration. The revenue has not negated that there Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 15 was an agreement prior to the execution of the sale agreement. In the absence of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the provisions of sub Section (3) and (4) of Section 43CA would be applicable to those transactions, where the assessee has received advance payment towards part consideration by cheque payment and the stamp duty value has to be determined as on the date of such transaction and not as per the date of registration of the transfer of asset. 15. On the above observation, we find justification in allowing the additional ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. 16. With regard to the additional ground no. 3 raised by the assessee, it is observed that when the stamp duty value of an immovable property assessed by the ld. AO is disputed by the assessee then the ld. AO will have to refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer in terms of Section 50C. In the present case in hand, this exercise has not been carried on by the ld. AO and had rather engaged the Income Tax Inspector (ITI) for the purpose of determining the stamp duty value as per the measurement arrived at by the Income Tax Inspector (ITI) on examining the occupants of the building. The assessee’s contentions that the said exercise was done mechanically without duly considering the sale agreement, in our view holds merit. We therefore deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. AO for determining the stamp duty valuation with the help of DVO after duly verifying the area that was sold to the alleged buyers and also depending upon the rules that was prevalent at that time as per the stamp authority. Needless it is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Next Estate & Projects Pvt. Ltd. 16 to say that, sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be accorded to the assessee and the ld. AO is also directed to decide the issue on the merits of the case after duly considering the submission and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. Additional ground no. 3 is hereby allowed for statistical purpose. 17. As there were no arguments enhanced by both sides on the other grounds of appeal the same is rendered academic in nature and requires no separate adjudication. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24.09.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "