IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment year : 2017-18)

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal vs ITO, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-

Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-ALAPP5767E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)

Date of hearing : 19/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 27/02/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“Ground no 1: Erroneous additions u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)

1. The leamed Assessing Officer (AO) has made an addition of Rs. 12,67,524, representing the difference between the purchase price of the property i.e Rs.55,57,500 and the stamp duty value le. Rs. 68,25,024 as on the date of registration of agreement (27th May 2016), as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority.

2. The Learned AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the transaction for purchase of immovable property, the agreement for which was entered into in the Financial Year 2013-14 through the allotment letter.

3. As per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause. However, the Learned AO and CIT(A) has erred in taking the stamp duty value as on the date of registration of agreement ie. in FY 2016-17.

4. The appellant has made payment of consideration for the property through account payee cheque, thereby satisfying the conditions laid down in the 2 proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 1" proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) shall be applicable only if the payments are made through any mode other than cash. In the present case, since the appellant had paid through account payee cheque, the conditions laid above have been satisfied. Therefore, the learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making the addition.

5. The appellant had submitted a copy of allotment letter before the learned AO in the submission dated 14 April 2023. Even the bank statement for FY 2013-14 showing the payment of booking for the purchase of the property was duly submitted vide letter dated 14 April 2023. However, the learned AO and CIT(A) did not consider our submission dated 14" April 2023 and passed an order making the impugned addition. The appellant appeals that the impugned demand of Rs. 5,10,760/- raised under section 156 is incorrect and liable to be deleted.

Ground no.2 : Interest u/s 234B

1. In accordance with grounds no.1, the appellant requests that interest levied u/s 2348 should be NIL instead of the amounts mentioned in the impugned order. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal as it may be advised.”

2. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels, perused the materials placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the order passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I notice that as per the facts of the present case, the assesse purchased an immovable property during the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs. 55,57,500/- and the market value of which was determined by the stamp duty valuation authority at Rs.68,25,024/-. Therefore, in this way, according to the revenue, the difference f Rs.12,67,524/- attracts the provisions of section 56(21)(vii)(b) of