ALOK SINGH,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the fair market value determined by the DVO and make an addition only for the differential sum, considering the assessee's share. This means the addition under section 56(2)(x) will be based on the DVO's valuation.
What were the facts?
The assessee jointly purchased an immovable property and the stamp duty value exceeded the consideration paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under section 56(2)(x) based on the stamp duty value as the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report was not received before the assessment deadline.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(x) based on stamp duty value was justified when the DVO's report was pending. The key issue is the correct valuation of the property for tax purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(x),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 131(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3098/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Alok Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 1001, Mahagun, Ward-2(1)(1), Marvella Apartment, Mahagun Ghaziabad Moderne Society, Sector-78, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:FFHPS9131H Assessee by : Shri Nishant Agrawal, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2026
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3098/Del/2025 for AY 2020-21, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 12.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 by the Assessing at NaFAC (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in upholding the addition made by the Learned AO under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
ITA No. 3098/Del/2025 Alok Singh
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had jointly purchased an immovable property at Arazi No. 60 / 1, Mauza – Taktakpur, District Varanasi on 31st May 2019 along with his brother with 50% share for total consideration of Rs 1,50,00,000. The circle rate as on the date of registered sale deed adopted by the stamp duty authorities was Rs 2,77,41,000. The assessee objected to the adoption of the stamp duty value and accordingly during the assessment proceedings requested the learned AO to make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The learned AO accordingly made a reference to the Technical Unit / valuation officer under section 131(1)(d) vide letter dated 6-3-2026. Since the valuation officer's report was not received before the limitation date of 31-3-2026, the assessment order stood passed on 26-3-2026 making an addition of Rs 63,70,500 [ (27741000-15000000) * 50% share] under section 56(2)(x) of the Act by adopting the stamp duty value. While doing so, the learned AO himself recorded in his assessment order that the said addition shall be subjected to modification in case if the learned DVO suggest a lesser value at later point in time.
The report of the Learned DVO dated 30-3-2026 was received subsequently, wherein the fair market value of the entire property as on 31-5-2019 was determined at Rs 1,67,47,300. Since the report of the Learned DVO was not available at the time of assessment proceedings, the Learned AO did not have the benefit of the same while making an addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act accordingly. Hence, we direct the Learned AO to adopt the value determined by the Learned DVO at Rs 1,67,47,300 for the whole property and make an addition in the hands of the assessee only for the differential sum in the following manner:-
ITA No. 3098/Del/2025 Alok Singh
Value as per DVO 1,67,47,300 Less: Value shown in the registered deed 1,50,00,000 Difference 17,47,300 Assessee’s share is 50% 8,73,650
The Learned AO is directed to add only Rs 8,73,650/- in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2026. -Sd/- -Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 15/07/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026