RUPAL NIRAV SHAH,SURAT V. 1 (3), SURAT

ITA 808/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rupal Nirav Shah, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs.19,21,024 to her income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a discrepancy between the declared sale consideration of Rs.1.44 crores and the value obtained from the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Valuation Authority, which was Rs.1.82 crores. The assessee argued that the sale consideration was based on the jantri value and that the document was registered without any demand for additional stamp duty, which was accepted by the stamp authority. The Tribunal, after reviewing the valuation statement from the Sub-Registrar, found that the property was sold for Rs.1,44,00,000, which was the declared value and matched the document value, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830853 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Competent authority
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 808/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rupal Nirav Shah, 10-C, Ratna Anushree Apartment, Nr. Raghu Ramji Party Plot, Umra, Surat-395007 [PAN : ADOPS 4397 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(3), Surat (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Ankur Shah, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 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 04.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions and contentions of the appellant and confirmed the additions of Rs.19,21,024/- made by the AO in applying the provision of 50C, without appreciating the facts that the document value and the jantri value are the same and is duly accepted by the competent authority. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 808/SRT/2025 Rupal Nirav Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-2019 - 2– 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in relying on the explanation provided by the AO in the assessment order and not accepted the sale value calculated and adopted by the sub-registrar office while processing the sale document. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that sale document was released without any liability towards additional stamp duty and thus, eventually value shown in the sale deed which is offered for capital gain tax by the appellant was accepted by the stamp authority.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.67.52 lakhs. During the year, the assessee, jointly with her husband, sold an immovable property. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had admitted a total sale consideration of Rs.1.44 crores, whereas as per the departmental information obtained from the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Valuation Authority, the value of the property was shown at Rs.1.82 crores. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer adopted the value of Rs.1.82 crores as the full value of consideration. 4. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was based on the jantri value of the residential building, and that the document was registered without any demand for additional stamp duty. It was also submitted that the stamp authority had accepted the declared value. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and held that the value of Rs.1.82 crores represented the composite value of land and building. Consequently, the assessee’s share of the difference amounting to Rs.19,21,024/- was added to her income. The assessment was completed vide order dated 09.04.2021, determining the total income at Rs.86,73,240/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 808/SRT/2025 Rupal Nirav Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-2019 - 3– 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer owing to a typographical mistake in the cost of the property as per the departmental information. We have gone through the Calculation Statement of Valuation of Immovable Property issued by the Sub-Registrar, wherein the value of the property has been mentioned as Rs.1,36,53,115/-, and the property has been sold for Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Stamp duty has been duly paid on the value of Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Since there is no difference between the value determined by the Sub-Registrar and the sale consideration, and the value of the property is not less than the jantri value of the Sub-Registrar as found from the document, we hereby hold that no addition is called for. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Surat; Dated 23/01/2026 btk Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 808/SRT/2025 Rupal Nirav Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-2019 - 4– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , /DR,ITAT, Surat, 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Surat 1. Date of dictation …dictated in the open court on..…21.01.2026….….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member … …22.01.2026………… 3. Other Member…….22.01.2026…………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …. …22.01.2026…………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement ....... 23..01.2026........ 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……23.01.2026…..…………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …23.01.2026….….…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "