What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) is directed to obtain a report from the DVO to determine the fair market value of the property.

The assessee's total income was determined at Rs. 8,17,214/- through an intimation under section 143(1). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), requesting a reference to the DVO for property valuation, but this was denied. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not referring the property to the DVO for valuation, and if this constitutes a violation of Section 50(2) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1), Section 250, Section 50(2)

Azhar Rahaman, Barasat, North… vs A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru | s.143(1), 250 | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Rabindra Nath Chakraburty, AR

For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR

Hearing: 03.09.2026Pronounced: 10.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1548/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Azhar Rahaman Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru West Berabari, R-Gopalpur PS-Airport, Barasat, North 24 Parganaz-700136 [PAN: BABPR0153H] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rabindra Nath Chakraburty, AR Respondent by : Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR Date of hearing : 03.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 27.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019-20.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Intimation came to be u/s 143(1) of the Act on 21.07.2020 by CPC, Bengaluru by determining the total income of Assessee at Rs.8,17,214/-. Aggrieved aforementioned Intimation dated 21.07.2020, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 27.02.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the

ITA No.1548/Kol/2026 Azhar Rahaman; A.Y: 2019-20 order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Assessee has requested before the CIT(A) to refer the case to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) has not referred the subject property to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the action of the CIT(A) in not referring the property to the DVO is clear violation of section 50(2) of the Act. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from order of the CIT(A), the Assessee requested for valuation of the property from DVO, by contending that the actual share market value is lesser than determined by the Assessing Officer. However, the request of the Assessee has been turned down by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no independent valuation report was submitted during the Appellate proceedings to contradict the Stamp Duty Value relied by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.

ITA No.1548/Kol/2026 Azhar Rahaman; A.Y: 2019-20 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to file of the Ld. CIT(A) by directing the Ld. CIT(A) to call for the report from the DVO in order to determine the fair market value and decide the first Appeal in accordance with law. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided opportunity of being heard.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 10.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10.09.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

AZHAR RAHAMAN,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments