IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4084/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 (Assessment Year :2006-07 Assessee by Shri Dhaval Shah a/w. Ms.

Tisha Bagh Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.

AR Date of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08 /01/2026 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of the reassessment framed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006–07. Through the grounds raised, the assessee has challenged both the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 as well as the additions made on merits, particularly in relation to the adoption of stamp duty value as the full value of consideration under section 50C and the determination of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 for the purposes of computing long-term capital gains.

2. The factual background, as borne out from the record, reveals that Late Shri Nitin Parikh was the owner of an office premises situated at 63-B, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Upon his demise on 28.01.1986, the said property devolved, in accordance with his testamentary disposition, upon his wife Smt. Usha Parikh and his daughters Smt. Bela Mehta and Ms. Bina Parikh, who thus became the lawful owners of the property by operation of succession.

3. The said property, thus inherited, was ultimately transferred to Shri Suresh Jain by way of an agreement for sale dated 05.08.2005 for a total consideration of ₹69,76,689/-. As per the express terms of the agreement, the entire sale consideration was paid and received on the very date of execution of the agreement, and possession of the property was also handed over contemporaneously. The transaction, therefore, stood substantively concluded on that date itself, both in terms of transfer of rights as well as receipt of consideration.

4. The agreement further stipulated that the responsibility of registration and payment of stamp duty would rest entirely upon the purchaser. In pursuance thereof, although the transfer stood effected in August 2005, the purchaser chose to register the document at a much later point of time, namely in the year 2009, by which time the stamp duty valuation had escalated to ₹1,17,18,000/- owing to revision of ready reckoner rates. This subsequent registration was neither contemporaneous with the transfer nor within the control of the assessee.

5. In the return of income filed for the year under consideration, the assessee computed the long-term capital gains by adopting the actual sale consideration of ₹69,76,689/- and by taking the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at ₹18,59,200/-, based on a valuation report obtained from a registered valuer. After applying indexation and deducting transfer-related expenses, the assessee arrived at a long-term capital loss, which was duly disclosed and carried forward. The detailed computation of income along with the valuation report relied upon by the assessee is reproduced hereunder.

6. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer questioned both the adoption of the sale consideration as on the date of agreement and the fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981. Proceeding on the premise that the document was registered in the year 2009, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C by adopting the stamp duty value prevailing as on the date of registration and further rejected the assessee’s valuation of the cost of acquisition, substituting the same with an estimated figure. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer forming the basis of the re