Archive · 8 Oct 2026
Mumbai ITAT Orders Fresh Valuation in Property Tax Dispute
A man and his wife bought a flat together in Mumbai for about Rs 60 lakh.
The stamp-duty authority valued it at Rs 94.81 lakh.
Tax officials treated the difference as the man's income, including the part linked to his wife's ownership.
The man said the flat was worth less because it lacked an Occupation Certificate and some basic amenities.
He asked for an independent valuation, but the tax authorities did not arrange one.
The tribunal said his valuation objection should be examined and the request for an independent valuation considered.
It also said he should not be taxed for his wife's share just because her case was not examined.
The tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer, so the final tax amount has not been decided.
A Mumbai man and his wife bought a Chembur flat for about Rs 60 lakh in August 2017.
The stamp-duty value was Rs 94.81 lakh, leaving a difference of Rs 34.81 lakh.
Tax authorities initially added the full difference to the man's taxable income under Section 56(2)(x)(b).
The ITAT said the Assessing Officer should consider the request for an independent Departmental Valuation Officer assessment.
The tribunal also said the man could not be taxed on his wife's share, and sent the case back for fresh examination.
- Who
- Shyamsunder Bansidhar Reengusia, his wife, and the Income Tax Department.
- What
- The Mumbai ITAT set aside the decision taxing the full stamp-duty and purchase-price difference to Reengusia and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
- When
- The flat was purchased in August 2017; the order is stated to be dated 31 August 2026.
- Where
- Chembur, Mumbai; the appeal was heard by the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Why
- Reengusia disputed the stamp-duty valuation, citing the missing Occupation Certificate and unavailable amenities, and objected to being taxed on his wife's share.
Taxpayer’s position
Tax authorities’ initial position
Property valuation
Taxpayer’s position
Reengusia argued that the stamp-duty value did not reflect the flat’s market value because it lacked an Occupation Certificate and some basic amenities, and sought an independent DVO valuation.
Tax authorities’ initial position
The Assessing Officer relied on the stamp-duty value and added the Rs 34.81 lakh difference to Reengusia’s income; the authorities had declined his DVO request.
Share attributable to each owner
Taxpayer’s position
Reengusia argued that he should not be taxed on his wife’s share of the difference because the property had identified co-owners and ownership proportions.
Tax authorities’ initial position
The CIT(A) upheld taxation of the full difference in Reengusia’s hands, reasoning that his wife’s share had not been disclosed and her case had not been scrutinized.
- Purchase price
- About Rs 60 lakh
- Stamp-duty value
- Rs 94.81 lakh
- Difference in values
- Rs 34.81 lakh
- Ownership shares
- Wife: 58.92%; Reengusia: 41.08%
- Tax provision cited
- Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act
- Tribunal outcome
- Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, including consideration of a DVO valuation request
- Case reference
- Shyamsunder Bansidhar Reengusia v. ITO, ITA No. 5585/Mum/2025, AY 2018-19