Sophia Mushtaq Panirwala Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) Addition on Stamp Duty Value – Ignoring Co-ownership DVO Request, ITAT Remands
The assessee jointly purchased a property with her son (50% share each) for ₹2.86 Cr, whereas stamp duty value was ₹5.15 Cr. The AO added the entire difference of ₹2.28 Cr u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) in assessee’s hands, treating it as income from other sources. Further, AO also invoked Sec 69 r.w.s. 115BBE for unexplained investment, alleging lack of proper explanation. CIT(A) upheld the additions citing non-submission of details.
Before ITAT, it was demonstrated that:
- Property was jointly owned (50% share) but addition made for 100%
- Assessee had requested DVO reference, which was ignored
- Valuation report & submissions were filed but not properly considered
- Non-compliance was due to genuine hardship (consultant illness/death)
- Similar addition already made in son’s case (50% share)
Tribunal held that:
- Authorities failed to consider co-ownership facts & evidences
- DVO reference request should have been examined
- Proper opportunity & evaluation of material was lacking
Accordingly, matter remanded to AO for fresh adjudication, with direction to:
- Consider additional evidence
- Refer valuation to DVO
- Re-examine issue on merits after giving opportunity
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080505962(1) dated 10.09.2025 passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 13.08.2022 for AY 2020-21.
