DARSHAN CONSRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2456/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was obligated to refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation. The addition made without such reference was considered unsustainable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of INR 1,00,55,000 based on stamp duty valuation, which was higher than the actual sale price of INR 85,00,000. The assessee contended that the stamp duty valuation was erroneous and the AO failed to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition based on stamp duty valuation without referring the dispute to the DVO, especially when the assessee questioned the valuation and the property was stock-in-trade?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 43CA,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

[ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 11/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) did not provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present its case regarding the incorrect stamp duty valuation and the necessity of referring the matter to the DVO. Assessment Year 2017-2018 The AO made an addition of Rs.1,00,55,000/- based on the stamp duty valuation without considering the actual sale price of Rs.85,00,000/-. The appellant order was passed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide a fair opportunity to contest the stamp duty valuation, disregarding objections without proper verification, making the addition legally unsustainable.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making an addition under Section 43CA solely based on the stamp duty value without directing to refer the matter to the DVO, despite the appellant’s objection, violating the provisions of Section 50C(2) read with Section 43CA(2).

3.

The stamp duty valuation was erroneously determined due to a mistake by the

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →