KUSUM MAHESHWARI,INDIA vs. PROPRIETOR, INDIA

ITA 58/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 June 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report did not adequately consider the encumbrances on the property. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to obtain a fresh valuation report after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,40,00,000, while the market value was Rs. 2,54,40,680. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and added the difference to the assessee's income. The assessee argued that the property was purchased from a tenant after 50 years of possession and was in a dilapidated condition, justifying a lower valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the valuation report of the DVO adequately considered the encumbrances on the property, and if the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was justified based on the market value without considering these factors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 15.11.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee against the order of the AO for the A.Y. 2016, passed on 21.03.2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250 having DIN and order по. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070395040(1) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 53,34,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →