Pushpa S. Amin Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai Bench)
Stamp Duty Value Cannot Create a Property That Was Never Received—ITAT Deletes ₹25.51 Lakh Addition u/s 56(2)(x)
The controversy
The assessee, Ms. Pushpa S. Amin, had acquired a residential property under a principal agreement executed in March 2006.
Following amendments to the Development Control Regulations and consequent alterations to the sanctioned building plan, a supplementary agreement was executed on 6 December 2017.
According to the assessee, the supplementary agreement merely incorporated changes necessitated by the revised building plan. It did not increase the overall area already allotted, confer any fresh proprietary right or require payment of additional consideration.
The AO, however, interpreted the supplementary agreement as granting the assessee a car-parking space for nil consideration. Since the supplementary instrument carried a stamp-duty value of ₹25,51,474, the AO treated that amount as income under s.56(2)(x).
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee approached the Mumbai ITAT.
120-day delay condoned
The appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by approximately 120 days.
The assessee, a senior citizen, explained through an affidavit that she had not received a physical copy of the CIT(A)’s order and did not regularly access her e-mail. She had also travelled outside India between 25 October & 15 November 2025.
