IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2027/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6^th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 PAN: (AFAPN9077M)

Appellant Respondent Present for:

Appellant by : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CA Respondent by : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed by ld. ITO (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 vide Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) dated 28.01.2025 passed pursuant to the Directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 02.12.2024 for AY 2016-17.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. The applicant states that the learned Income tax officer has erred in passing the order which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle laid down in the Interpretation of statutes and order issued is bad in law and illegal and against the principle of Act and judicial pronouncement.

2. The applicant states that the addition of Rs. 18,95,000/- to the Income of the applicant u/s 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of consideration paid for the purchase of the flat No. 901 Building known as "Prathmesh Pearls" at bearing CTS No.433,433/1, Bhandup Village Road Bhandup West, Mumbai 400078 completely disregarding the actual date of allotment agreement Dated 29.09.2010 and the Cheque payment made pursuant to the same as a part purchase consideration for the purchase of the said flat and disregarding the Provisions of proviso to the section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act

3. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case, The DRP/ Ld. AO erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,95,000/- disregarding the Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii)of the Act, which stipulates that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer/ purchase of immovable property (date of allotment 29.09.2010) and the date of registration (18.03.2016) are not the same, the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause, Provided that amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property.

4. The DRP/Ld. AO erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,95,000/-, affirming the Contention of the Income Tax Officer, vide Draft Order u/s. 144C, dated 02.12.2024 that..... in such scenarios the interpretation has to be strict. In absence of any formal Agreement", the benefit of the immunity proviso cannot be allowed to the applicant assessee".”

2.1. The issue contested by the assessee in the present appeal is in respect of addition of Rs. 18,95,000/-, u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b), on account of consideration paid for purchase of a flat at Mumbai, for the difference in the value mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 17.03.2016, and the value which ought to have been taken as per the allotment letter issued by builder on 29.09.2010 for which assessee had made part payment through account payee cheque for booking of the said flat.

3. Brief facts of the case in this regard are that assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. Specific information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT through ITBA portal under the category “NMS cases”. Based on this specific information, case of the assessee was taken up for reopening u/s.14