SADHAN MONDAL,BERHAMPORE vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2119/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 August 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee disputed the consideration value and requested such a referral. The AO's failure to do so violated Section 50C(2) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 10,00,000/- which was significantly lower than its market value. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,37,500/- under Section 56(2)(x) without referring the property for valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not referring the property for valuation to the DVO as per Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the valuation and requested it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Himangshu Kumar Roy, Shri P.K, Shri Rantu Bose and Shri Animita
For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2119/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Sadhan Mondal Vs. ITO Ward-42(1), 17/3/B, Amar Chakraborty Murshidabad Road, Khagra, Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad, West Bengal-742103 [PAN: ANFPM4477M] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Himangshu Kumar Roy, Shri P.K. Roy, Shri Rantu Bose and Shri Animita Roy, ARs Respondent by : Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 04.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

There is a delay of 35 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 35 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.2119/Kol/2026 Sadhan Mondal; A.Y: 2020-21 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee has not filed return of income. During the year under consideration, Assessee purchased an immovable property for value of Rs.10,00,000/- as against the market value of Rs.30.37 lacs. The reassessment proceedings initiated against the Assessee by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, Assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.12,01,500/-. An Assessment Order came to be passed on 10.02.2025 by making addition of Rs.20,37,500/- by treating the same as income from other sources as per Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 10.02.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 04.02.2026, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.20,37,500/- without referring the matter for valuation from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) despite the Assessee prayed for referring the matter for valuation from DVO, violated the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the order impugned.

ITA No.2119/Kol/2026 Sadhan Mondal; A.Y: 2020-21 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessee has purchased the immovable property below the stamp value which is clear violation of provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the orders of the Lower Authorities, thus sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The case of the Assessee was reopened as the Assessee has purchased an immovable property for the value of Rs.10,00,000/- as against the market value of Rs.30.37 lacs. During the assessment proceedings vide reply dated 16.12.2024, Assessee specifically prayed for referring the property for valuation to the DVO as per sub-section 2 of Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the request of the Assessee and proceeded to make the impugned addition.

7.

It is well-settled that when the Assessee disputes the value of consideration and subsequently requests the Assessing Officer for referral to DVO, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO as per section 50C(2) of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has violated the said provision of law by not allowing the request of the Assessee for referring the matter to DVO.

ITA No.2119/Kol/2026 Sadhan Mondal; A.Y: 2020-21 8. In view of the above, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment afresh.

9.

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

Order pronounced on 20.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

(MANISH BHOI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →