ANKIT JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2683/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 56(2)(vii) read with Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not pressed by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made under Section 69 (unexplained investment) and Section 56(2)(vii) (income from other sources) for AY 2016-17. The additions pertained to a co-purchased capital asset.

What were the issues?

Whether a reference to the DVO is mandatory for additions under Section 56(2)(vii) when stamp duty value exceeds the consideration, and whether the matter requires re-adjudication based on fresh evidence for Section 69 additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M BALAGANESH

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 01.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2683/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Ankit Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, c/o SSAR & Associates Ward 36(1), 102-104, 4379/4, Prakash House, Civic Centre, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- New Delhi- 02 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUNPJ1507E

Assessee by: Sh. Rajiv Jain, AR Revenue by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing: 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 01.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’), Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085971258(1), dated 13.02.2026, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 2. It is evident at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant before us is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings inter alia making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs. 11,05,217/- and that u/s 56 (2)(vii) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 66,99,725/-; respectively.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands against and in support of the impugned twin additions. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that although the assessee had co- purchased the relevant capital asset for Rs. 1,01,01,100/- to the extent to 1/4th share having stamp value of Rs. 3,69,00,000/- which prima facie attracts the impugned statutory provision, but, at the same time, there is no indication that the learned lower authorities had made any statutory reference to the DVO u/s 56(2)(vii) 3rd proviso as in tune with section 50C(2) of the Act. The Revenue at this stage seeks to buttress the point that it was the assessee’s bounden duty only to press for such a statutory reference before both the learned lower authorities. We are afraid that its objection to the very effect already stands rejected in Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Kolkata) wherein the lordships have settled the issue that such a reference is very much mandatory in nature even if the assessee concerned does not raise any objection before the departmental authorities. We thus restore the

3 assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive ground back to learned Assessing Officer to proceed afresh after making the necessary reference made to DVO concerned as per law.

4.

Coming to the assessee’s section 69 issue (supra), we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be re-adjudicated afresh in the light of assessee’s fresh details and evidence sought to be pressed before us. The same also stands restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in very terms.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 01.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →