SARITA SATYENDRA SINGH,MUMBAI V. ITO WD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 9248/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Sarita Satyendra Singh against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, which sustained the AO's decision to tax the differential amount between the purchase value and the stamp duty valuation of three immovable properties. The assessee argued that the stamp duty valuation did not reflect the Fair Market Value due to various adverse factors associated with the properties, including poor construction quality and title issues. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the assessee's request for a valuation by the Valuation Officer and admitted additional valuation reports submitted by the assessee, which were deemed to go to the root of the matter.

• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R. SINGH; AKSHAY PAWAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9248/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Sarita Satyendra Singh, 28-A/202, Highway View Chs Ltd., Bimbisar Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai-400065. PAN : AUHPS5011Q vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23-03-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 16-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 31-08-2018, which was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued a show Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 9248/Mum/2025 cause on 30-03-2021, again there was no compliance to the show cause. Thereafter, the AO proceeded and brought to tax the difference between the purchase value of three immoveable properties purchased by the assessee and the stamp duty valuation thereof and the differential amount of Rs. 94,69,000/- was brought to tax in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the order and the findings of the AO and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that admittedly, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that it was during Covid-19 pandemic that notices were issued and the assessment proceedings were undertaken resulting in non-compliance. At the same time, it was submitted that the assessee has submitted detailed written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and it was also submitted that the first property is located in a remote village of Uttar Pradesh, where there is a perennial water shortage, the land has access problem as well as there is dispute as to title and proportion in which the land is owned and given all these adverse factors, the stamp duty value cannot be considered as the Fair Market Value of the property and the same can be ascertained only by making site visit and making local enquiries. As far as second and third properties are concerned, it was submitted that these properties are built by the Government Organisation, MHADA and it is well known that there is construction quality deficit in these buildings as also there are lot of maintenance issues in these colonies built by the Government organization. Further, the title of underlying land is not with the assessee and MHADA continues to be owner of the land and going forward structural changes/redevelopment normally becomes very difficult. It was Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 9248/Mum/2025 accordingly submitted that in view of all these factors, these MHADA properties gets transacted at discount price to standard rate in the concerned area. Therefore, the stamp duty value is not the right basis to consider the Fair Market Value of these properties. It was accordingly submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that the matter may be referred to the Valuation Officer to ascertain and determine the value on the basis of factual position and the ground reality rather than following general stamp duty valuation in terms of the proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has simply stated that the assessee has made a general statement about the poor quality of construction of MHADA properties and title issues in respect of the other property and the assessee has not submitted any supporting evidences and basis that the findings of the AO have been confirmed. It was submitted that there is no finding recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) as to the request made by the assessee to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. It was submitted that once the assessee objects to the valuation as per the stamp duty authority, the matter ought to have been referred to the Valuation Officer which has not happened in the instant case. Regarding the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has neither submitted price of properties sold in the same locality/area nor has submitted any valuation report from any Government approved valuer. It was submitted that the said information was never called for by the Ld.CIT(A), however, the assessee has since obtained the valuation report in respect of these three properties under consideration and the assessee has also moved an application under Rule 29 to submit these valuation reports by way of additional evidences. It was submitted that these valuation reports goes to the root of the matter and would help demonstrate the case of the assessee as to why stamp duty valuation could not be taken as the appropriate basis for working out the Fair Market Value of the properties under consideration. It was accordingly Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 9248/Mum/2025 submitted that the additional evidence by way of the valuation report of the three properties may be admitted and the matter may be remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the matter to the file of the Valuation Officer where the Valuation Officer can also examine the valuation reports submitted by the assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR is heard, who has relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee has failed to make any compliance to various notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that the assessee did make a request before the Ld.CIT(A) for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer. It was accordingly submitted that where the Bench so decide, the matter may be referred to the AO/DVO to work out the Fair Market Value of the properties under consideration. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there has been non-compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee explained the reasons for differential amount between the agreed purchase consideration and the stamp duty valuation and has also made a request to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding as to why the matter could not be referred to the Valuation Officer. Given that the assessee has specifically objected to the adoption of the stamp duty valuation, we believe that in such a scenario, without making a reference to the Valuation Officer, the stamp duty valuation cannot be adopted for the purpose of invocation of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also filed copy of the valuation report in respect of the three properties under consideration by Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 9248/Mum/2025 way of additional evidences which we find goes to the root of the matter. The additional evidences by way of valuation reports are hereby admitted and we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the same to the Valuation Officer for determination of Fair Market Value of the properties under consideration, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-03-2026 Sd/- Sd/- [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 23-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "