IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1552/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Himmatbhai M. Patel, Vs. ITO, 18, Kailash Dham Part-2, Ward 5(3)(1), India Colony Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380024 [PAN :AANPD 2497 D]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR Date of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

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

16.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), relating to the Assessment Year 2015-

16.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs 11,04,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verifying "Large investment in property as compare to total income". The Assessing Officer has passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on

22.08.2017 by accepting the returned income.

2.1 Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 5, Ahmedabad passed an order u/s 263 on 20.12.2019 to revise the order u/s 143(3) dated

22.08.2017. The PCIT also observed in the order that the assessee has under- valued the property purchased to the tune of Rs.41,40,000/- in comparison to the value adopted by SRO.

2.2 On verification of assessee's case records, Assessing Officer noticed that, during the year under consideration the assessee has purchased immovable properties jointly and assessee's share is 15% which is amounting to Rs.73,95,000/- and paid stamp duty of Rs. 5,65,215/-. In this case, the assessee has purchased land and made payment in cash and payment is not done as per Jantri rates ie. market value. The assessee has paid purchase consideration lesser than the market value, therefore, section 56(vii)b(ii) of the Act was held to be applicable on the purchase consideration. Hence, Assessing Officer assessed the difference in value of Rs.41,40,000/- as income from other sources u/s 56(vii)b(ii) of the Act total income of the assessee for the A.Y.2015-16 u/s

143(3) r.w.s.263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition of Rs.41,40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who held as under:-.

“7.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed the written submission along with supporting documents and the same are perused and examined by the undersigned. The assessee has claimed that the original agreement was entered on 28.06.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through banking channel, therefore, the market value as on the date of registration on 05.03.2014 is not applicable and the market value as on 28.06.2007 is to be adopted. The assessee argument is perused and the same is not acceptable for the reason that though the assessee has entered initial agreement entered on 28.06.2007, the substantial purchase consideration was not paid as on 28.06.2007 and possession of the property was not handed over to the assessee. In the normal business parlance, the transfer of the property to take place only after paying the entire consideration and possession should be handed over. In the assessee's case, the substantial purchase consideration was not paid and the possession was not handed over, therefore, the market value as on 28.06.2007 could not be adopted. In view of the above mentioned facts and discussions, the property was transferred only on 05.03.2014, therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 56(vii)b(ii) of the Act is confirmed. The assessee has raised the objection on the addition of Rs.41,40,000/- through ground nos. 1 to 4, therefore, gro