Devyani Deepak Rawtal Vs ITO (ITAT Indore)
The ITAT, Indore Bench held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is statutory & automatic where stamp duty value exceeds purchase consideration, and the plea that property was purchased from a reputed listed developer does not dilute the provision. Accordingly, the 50% share of stamp value difference was rightly brought to tax in principle.
However, the Tribunal drew a clear distinction on valuation safeguard. Since the assessee had specifically disputed stamp valuation and requested DVO reference in objections filed u/s 144C(2), denial of such reference defeated the protective mechanism built into proviso to s.56(2)(vii)(b) r.w.s. s.50C(2). The Bench held that a technical lapse in routing the request (DRP vs AO) cannot deny substantive benefit, especially when objections u/s 144C are statutorily filed with both AO & DRP.
Accordingly, the issue was set aside to the AO with a direction to mandatorily refer the valuation to DVO, and thereafter decide afresh, with liberty to re-trigger DRP procedure if required. Appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT INDORE
Feeling aggrieved by final order of assessment bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1071274337(1) dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], pursuant to the directions dated 28.11.2024 issued by learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [“DRP”] u/s 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal.
