ARYA MULTILOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD (1) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 467/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 July 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed without considering the DVO's report and the CIT(A) order was ex parte. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination after considering the DVO's report and providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a loss for AY 2022-23. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,37,90,401 under section 56(2)(x)(b) due to alleged difference in immovable property value. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed without considering the DVO's report is valid, and whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)(b),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/07/2026Pronounced: 14/07/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 467/RJT/2025 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23 ] Arya Multilogistic Private Limited ITO Ward (1) Ground Floor, Office No.07,Τ.Μ. Income Tax Office Ward 1 Room Vs. Tower, Sector 9, Gandhidham-370201 No.01, Ground Flooaayaka, Gujarat Gandhidham-370201, Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAVCA4466C (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14/07/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2022-23, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘NFAC’], dated 17.06.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2024.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2022–23 declaring a loss of Rs.6,17,255. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section

ITA No. 467/RJT/2025 Arya Multilogistics Pvt. Ltd. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making an addition of Rs.2,37,90,401 under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act on account of the alleged difference in the value of the immovable property.

3.

Dissatisfied with the order of then AO assessee is went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4.

Still aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without awaiting the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). It was contended that the assessment order passed without considering the DVO’s report is contrary to law. It was further submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is also an ex parte order passed without granting adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, it was prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee for proper adjudication of the issue.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the dispute relates to the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of making an addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. It is an admitted position that, at the time of completion of the assessment, the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer was not available and, consequently, the same was not considered by the Assessing Officer. We further note that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also been passed ex parte. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice,

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 467/RJT/2025 Arya Multilogistics Pvt. Ltd. we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the matter afresh after considering the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer and after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 14/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)(b)

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →