Harsha Rajan Mehrotra Vs NFAC/Circle (ITAT Mumbai)
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the addition of ₹29.22 lakh made under Section 56(2)(x), holding that stamp duty value as on the date of booking/allotment (and not registration) must be adopted where consideration is fixed earlier and payments are made through banking channels.
The AO had taxed the difference between:
- Purchase consideration: ₹80.92 lakh
- Stamp duty value (on registration): ₹1.10 crore
treating ₹29.22 lakh as income.
However, the Tribunal noted:
- The property was booked in 2012, and consideration was substantially fixed then,
- Initial payment was made through banking channels, satisfying proviso conditions,
- Increase in stamp value was only due to passage of time and rise in ready reckoner rates.
The ITAT held:
- First proviso to Section 56(2)(x) applies when:
- Agreement date ≠ registration date, and
- Consideration (or part) paid through banking channels,
- Allotment letter/booking qualifies as “agreement”, not just registered agreement,
- Hence, stamp duty value on booking date must be adopted.
The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)’s approach that relied on “date of receipt/transfer”, holding that specific proviso overrides general interpretation.
Accordingly, the addition was deleted in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 23.09.2025 for the assessment year 2020–21, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]dated 24.03.2023.
