RAGINI BHADAURIA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 9134/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ragini Bhadauria against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the addition of Rs. 13,44,519 to her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition represented the difference between the purchase price of an immovable property and its stamp value, as assessed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the payment details of the property transaction, which were made through a specified channel by the assessee's predecessor, Ms. Bhanu Pratap Singh. The Tribunal concluded that this payment method qualified under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b), leading to the deletion of the impugned addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833568 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S. KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 147; 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 9134/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ragini Bhadauria, C/o Sunila Chanana, CA, New Delhi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMHPB7637F Assessee by: Sh. S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) dated 19.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein, it is noticed at the outset that she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.13,44,519/- representing the difference between purchase price of the immovable property in question to the tune of Rs.19,38,081/- as against stamp value thereof amounting to Rs.32,82,600/-; respectively, in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 9134/Del/2025 Ragini Bhadauria 2 assessment order dated 08.03.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, I hereby notice from a perusal of the case records that the original agreement regarding the purchase of capital asset in issue was accompanied by the advance payment through cheque to the tune of Rs.11,98,000/; by the assessee’s predecessor in interest Ms. Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of Sushant Golf city/developer, Lucknow (UP). This being the clinching factual position, it emerges that section 56(2)(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso(es) make it clear that such a payment made through specified channel is to be treated as the fair market value of the asset in question which squarely applies in the assessee’s favour. I accordingly delete the impugned addition of Rs.13,44,519/- in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2026. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 03/02/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "