
Chennai ITAT rules unregistered sale agreement qualifies for Section 50C relief, rejecting ₹99.06 lakh tax addition on ₹1.93 crore stamp value vs ₹94 lakh sale price.
A Chennai taxpayer who sold property for ₹94 lakh despite a stamp-duty value of ₹1.93 crore has won a tax-relief ruling from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The tribunal held that the tax department could not deny Section 50C relief merely because the agreement to sell was unregistered.
The case involves Aroumougam Pragalanadane, who entered into an agreement to sell the property on 11 July 2013 for ₹94 lakh. He received ₹48.5 lakh through RTGS on the agreement date and the remaining ₹45 lakh through banking channels on 23 March 2015. The registered sale deed was executed on 7 March 2017.
By the time the deed was registered, the property's guideline value for stamp duty had risen to ₹1.93 crore. The difference between actual consideration and stamp value triggered Section 50C proceedings.
Section 50C of the Income Tax Act says that when immovable property sells for less than its stamp-duty value, the stamp value can be treated as the deemed sale consideration for capital gains computation, subject to safeguards. One safeguard, the proviso, allows the stamp value as of the agreement date when the sale price was fixed earlier – provided the consideration was paid through banking channels.
The Assessing Officer treated ₹1.93 crore as the deemed sale consideration and made an addition of ₹99.06 lakh – the gap between the stamp value and the ₹94 lakh in the sale deed. The taxpayer argued that the sale price had been fixed under the 11 July 2013 agreement and that most of the consideration moved through RTGS before registration. The Assessing Officer rejected the argument because the agreement was not registered. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition.
The Chennai ITAT took a different view. In its 8 July 2026 order, the tribunal said the provisos to Section 50C allow the stamp-duty value as on the date of the agreement to be considered when the date of the agreement fixing the consideration differs from the date of registration – provided the statutory payment condition is met. The tribunal found that the sale price was fixed on 11 July 2013 and that ₹48.5 lakh had already been received through RTGS that day. The remaining ₹45 lakh also moved through RTGS before registration.
The tribunal rejected the argument that an unregistered agreement cannot qualify for the Section 50C proviso. Once the agreement, the agreed consideration and the banking-channel payments were established, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the agreement itself was unregistered, the tribunal said.
The ruling is significant for property sellers whose transactions span several years. A surge in guideline values between the agreement date and the registration date can create a tax liability on income the seller never actually received. The case underscores the importance of preserving the agreement to sell, payment records and other documentary evidence when a property transaction spans several years.
For taxpayers, the takeaway is practical: keep the agreement to sell, bank receipts and any evidence that the consideration was fixed and partly paid well before registration. An unregistered agreement is not a dealbreaker, provided the payments moved through banking channels.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.