INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing)

Mahesh Rochiram (HUF) Vs. Income Tax Officer

105, 1^st Floor, Piramal Chamber, 36/B Turner Road, Mumbai-400012.

Bandra West, Mumbai-400050.

PAN: AAFTS 3012 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Jay Shah, Advocate Revenue by Shri. Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement /09/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 31.03.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Assessee had purchased the Immovable Property in the FY 2006-17 and entered in to an agreement dated 10.10.2006 (FY 2006-07). As the First payment towards purchases of the said Premises, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- was made on 07.10.2006, it can simply be enumerated that, the Assessee has started making the payment for such purchases from FY 2006-07.

Then after, the difference of Stamp Duty was paid under Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme on 25.06.2009. However, on adjudication and Assessment the Application under Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme was rejected.

Thereafter, to resolve the issue, the Stamp Duty as computed in 2016, was paid by the Assessee.

Though all documents such as Agreement, Stamp Duty Receipts, Statement showing Payment Made along with Bank Statement, were submitted, which were ignored by the AO.

2. The Consideration as per the Agreement dated 10.10.2006 was Rs. 1,36,35,000/- 6 However, the Stamp Duty valuation on the date of Registration i.e. 16.06.2016, was Rs. 4,18,37,500/-. The Difference of Rs.

2,82,02,500/-.

As, The AO erred in adding such difference as the Income from Other Sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b), considering the date of Registration as the Date of Purchases.

3. The AO has claimed that the buyer and seller accepted the Sales Consideration, while paying the Stamp Duty, where the AO has completely ignored the Process of Stamp Duty payment, according to Stamp Duty Adjudication Process, the Stamp Duty Valuation shall be computed on the date of payment and accordingly, the stamp duty shall be demanded. The AO ignored the basic fact of the Date of Fixing the Transaction, date of Agreement and date of Payment. The claim of the AO is completely unjustified.

4. Further, as rightly mentioned in the earlier notice issued by AO about Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) says that:-

56[2] In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section [1], the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:-

[vii] where an individual or a HUF receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017-

The AO erred in considering the date of Registration as the date of Purchases.

(b) any immovable property-

[i] without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property;

[ii] for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration.

However, in the given case, the Assessee has entered in to an agreement in the year 2006, hence, this provisions are not applicable. The AO erred in applying the provisions, which are not applicable on the date of Agreement.

5. Due to above additions, the AO has raised the Income tax Demand and levied interest on the same, which is totally unjustifiable.

In the above circumstances considering peculiar situation, true facts and applicable provisions of Law, your appellant prays for consideration of the detailed grounds of appeal and contentions attached herewith, while reserving