CHANDER PARKASH GROVER,GURGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

The only issue raised by the assessee is regarding the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.21,04,800/-. through its order dated 30.03.2022. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed the following brief factual matrix for our consideration. The Ld. Assessing Officer through his order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 30.03.2022 had made an addition of Rs.21,04,800/- to the returned income. While doing so, the ld. Assessing Officer had adopted stamp duty value of Rs.42,04,800/-. The assessee had contested the impugned addition before the ld. CIT(A). Meanwhile, in response to a reference by the ld. Assessing Officer, valuation report dated 26.04.2022 was submitted by the DVO determining fair market value of the property at Rs.22,44,500/-. The ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an order u/s 154 dated 27.09.2023 and recomputed the capital gains adopting DVO’s report. The assessee conveyed this fact to the ld. CIT(A) through reply dated 17.03.2026 requesting for withdrawal of the appeal. Copy of letter dated 17.03.2026 filed before ld. CIT(A) has been placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) however proceeded to confirm the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer through his order dated 18.03.2026 on the premise of non-compliance. The assessee is assailing the impugned order. 3. Heard rival parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the order of ld. CIT(A) is incorrect as it choose to ignore the order u/s 154 passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have noted from the rectification order dated 27.09.2023 placed at page 23 of the assessee’s paper book that the same was passed in consideration of the DVO’s report dated 26.04.2022 placed at pages 25 to 32 of the appellant’s paper book. Once,