Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/itat-quashes-50c-addition-citing-valuation-typo-higher-consideration.html
Rupal Nirav Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench concerned an addition made under section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018–19. The assessee had filed her return declaring total income of ₹67.52 lakh. During the relevant year, she jointly sold an immovable property with her husband for a declared consideration of ₹1.44 crore. The Assessing Officer noted that departmental information from the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Valuation Authority reflected the property value at ₹1.82 crore and, on that basis, invoked section 50C to substitute the sale consideration. The assessee’s share of the alleged difference, amounting to ₹19,21,024, was added to her income, and the assessment was completed at ₹86.73 lakh.
Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that the sale consideration was in accordance with the jantri value, the document was registered without any demand for additional stamp duty, and the declared value had been accepted by the stamp authority. However, the explanation was rejected on the ground that the higher figure represented the composite value of land and building. The Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, upheld the addition.
On further appeal, the Tribunal examined the valuation records issued by the Sub-Registrar. It found that the calculation statement of valuation mentioned the property value at ₹1,36,53,115 and that the actual sale consideration was ₹1,44,00,000, on which stamp duty had been duly paid. The Tribunal observed that the addition arose due to a typographical error in the departmental records and that there was no difference between the value accepted by the stamp authority and the sale consideration declared by the assessee. Since the sale price exceeded the jantri value and the document had been registered without any additional stamp duty liability, the conditions for invoking section 50C were not satisfied. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that no addition was warranted and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The order was pronounced on 23 January 2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions and contentions of the appellant and confirmed the additions of Rs.19,21,024/- made by the AO in applying the provision of 50C, without appreciating the facts that the document value and the jantri value are the same and is duly accepted by the competent authority.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in relying on the explanation provided by the AO in the assessment order and not accepted the sale value calculated and adopted by the sub-registrar office while processing the sale document.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that sale document was released without any liability towards additional stamp duty and thus, eventually value shown in the sale deed which is offered for capital gain tax by the appellant was accepted by the stamp authority.”
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.67.52 lakhs. During the year, the assessee, jointly with her husband, sold an immovable property. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had admitted a total sale consideration of Rs.1.44 crores, whereas as per the departmental information obtained from the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Valuation Authority, the value of the property was shown at Rs.1.82 crores. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer adopted the value of Rs.1.82 crores as the full value of consideration.
4. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was based on the jantri value of the residential building, and that the document was registered without any demand for additional stamp duty. It was also submitted that the stamp authority had accepted the declared value. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and held that the value of Rs.1.82 crores represented the composite value of land and building. Consequently, the assessee’s share of the difference amounting to Rs.19,21,024/- was added to her income. The assessment was completed vide order dated 09.04.2021, determining the total income at Rs.86,73,240/-.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer owing to a typographical mistake in the cost of the property as per the departmental information. We have gone through the Calculation Statement of Valuation of Immovable Property issued by the Sub-Registrar, wherein the value of the property has been mentioned as Rs.1,36,53,115/-, and the property has been sold for Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Stamp duty has been duly paid on the value of Rs.1,44,00,000/-. Since there is no difference between the value determined by the Sub-Registrar and the sale consideration, and the value of the property is not less than the jantri value of the Sub-Registrar as found from the document, we hereby hold that no addition is called for.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026
aniltikotekar4sme.com 