Naseem Ayub Shaikh Vs MUM-W-(201)(92) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes against the order dated 18.03.2026 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18, which had sustained an addition of Rs.33,28,500/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee and a co-owner purchased Flats Nos. 701 and 702 in Crescent Exotica, Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai, under registered agreements executed on 30.04.2016 for aggregate consideration of Rs.84,25,000/-, whereas the stamp-duty value was Rs.1,50,82,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs.66,57,000/- as taxable and, considering equal ownership, brought 50%, i.e. Rs.33,28,500/-, to tax in the assessee’s hands. The assessee contended that the flats had been allotted on 30.03.2011 for Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.47,75,000/– respectively and that substantial payments had been made through banking channels, and therefore the stamp-duty value prevailing on the date on which the consideration was agreed should be adopted under the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal, relying upon Parth Dashrath Gandhi Vs Addl./Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 1990/Mum/2022, AY 2018-19, held that an allotment letter issued by a developer cannot be rejected merely because it is styled as an allotment letter, and that its substance must be examined to determine whether it constituted an agreement fixing consideration and whether the statutory conditions were fulfilled. Since the Assessing Officer had not examined the terms and contents of the allotment letters, whether the consideration was finally and unconditionally fixed, the actual payments and their banking modes and dates, or the stamp-duty value as on 30.03.2011, the Tribunal considered verification necessary. It therefore set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that if the allotment letters constituted an agreement fixing consideration and the prescribed payment condition was satisfied, the stamp-duty value applicable on the date of such agreement should be considered and the taxable difference, if any, recomputed in accordance with law. The assessee was also to be afforded adequate opportunity to produce relevant evidence and be heard. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
