Sopna Rani Pandhy vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3)

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6453/Del/2026 for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1089133936(1) dated 21.05.2026, involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Learned counsel invites our attention to the assessee’s second substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeking to reverse section 56(2)(vii) addition of Rs. 55,22,000/-; made in the Assessing Officer’s assessment order, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, we hereby notice from a perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant had executed the relevant agreement dated 06.08.2002 for the purpose of acquiring a plot bearing No. A-142, Shalimar Golden Extension-2, Sahibabad-201005 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,76,000/-. She further appears to have paid an advance money of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque No. 154755 drawn with M/s UCO Bank. We do not find much a dispute between the parties that the said cheque duly found mentioned as part of the agreement itself at pages 19 onwards; registered with the sub-registrar concerned.

Be that as it may, coming to the relevant previous year, the assessee could finally get executed the registration sale deed on 17.02.2016 having circle rate of Rs. 64.97 lakhs. It is this differnce between the earlier sale consideration of Rs. 9,75,00,000/- viz-a-viz that at the time of registration of sale deed of Rs. 64.97 lakhs which forms the subject matter of addition made in her hands in both the lower proceedings.

Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the impugned section 56(2)(vii) addition made in the assessee’s hands hardly deserves to be concurred with. This is for the precise reason that section 56(2)(vii)(b) r.w. the first and second proviso(es) make it clear that in a case, the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and that of registration regarding transfer of an immovable property are not the same, stamp value as on the former date shall be taken for the purpose of the said clause subject to a rider that any payment thereof; be it in full or in part, ought to have been made by a mode other than the cash, on or before the date of agreement; as the case may be. We wish to re-emphasize here that the assessee had paid a portion of the purchase consideration amounting to Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque no. 154755(supra) which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impunged section 56(2)(vii) addition of Rs. 64.97 lakhs in the assessee’s hands which is directed to be deleted in very terms.

All other remaining issues between the parties stand allowed being consequential in nature.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.