SHRI RAJKUMAR L. DARYANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7819/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 September 2026AY 2006-075 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the specific directions from the previous ITAT order. The Tribunal also noted a similar deletion of addition in the assessee's wife's case for the same assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 6,20,215/- made by the AO, which was upheld by the CIT(A). This was the second round of litigation, with a previous ITAT order directing the AO to objectively examine the assessee's stand and the basis of stamp duty valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO complied with the directions of the ITAT in the previous round of litigation and whether the addition was justified based on the DVO's report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

Pronounced: 11.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)1 VISHAKHAPATNAM, dated 03-Oct-2025 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts. 2. The assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer and up-held by the learned Addl / JCIT (A) is ab-initio void, inasmuch as, directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in regard to valuation of plots sold has not been followed, Order passed in contradiction to the directions of superior authority is ab-initio void. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in making impugned addition of Rs. 6,20,215/- relying on the valuation 3 report of DVO, even though there is no provision in the Act, to consider a valuation report received after conclusion of the assessment proceedings. 4. The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in making impugned addition of Rs. 6,20,215/- in contradiction to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & other High Courts. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and 5 judicial propositions, impugned addition of Rs.6,20,215/- is wholly unteanable in law.

2.

All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of assessment, whereby an addition of Rs. 6,20,215/- was made by the AO. Therefore, I have decided to adjudicate these grounds by way of the present consolidated order.

3.

I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before me, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, I notice that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, an addition was made by the AO, which was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). Ultimately, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, vide its order dated 03.08.2017, held as under:

“In the instant case, the assessee has given a detailed clarification as to why the land sold by the assessee could not fetch a higher value. The AO has not properly gone through the stand taken by the assessee in order to find out as to what was the basis for the stamp duty authorities in adopting the value.”

4.

Although the matter was set aside to the file of the AO, the AO, in the second round of litigation, again made an addition of Rs. 6,20,215/- while relying upon the report of the DVO.

5.

I find that the directions of the Coordinate Bench were not complied with by the Revenue Authorities. The Coordinate Bench had specifically directed the AO to examine the stand taken by the assessee objectively and to ascertain the basis on which the stamp duty authorities had adopted the value. However, no such exercise was carried out by the AO in the second round of litigation.

6.

I also notice that the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, in the case of the wife of the assessee, in ITA No. 4785/MUM/2014 for A.Y. 2006-07, vide its order dated 10.09.2014, had already deleted the addition made by the AO in the second round of litigation.

7.

In the present case as well, no such action was taken by the AO despite the specific directions of the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.08.2017 to analyse the issue objectively. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the action of the AO is not in accordance with law.

8.

Accordingly, while respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 4785/MUM/2014 for A.Y. 2006- 07, vide order dated 10.09.2014, in the case of the wife of the assessee, and considering the fact that the AO has not complied with the specific directions of the Coordinate Bench dated 03.08.2017, I direct the AO to delete the addition made in the present case.

9.

Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.09.2026.

Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 11.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: SHRI RAJKUMAR L. DARYANANI, C/O G.P.MEHTA & CO. CAS, 807, TULSIANI 1 CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT., MULTAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA

THE ACIT CIRCLE 17(3), 232, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA 2 EAST., MULTAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →