MADHUSUDAN SINGHARI,PURI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2(1), , BHUBANESWAR

1 ITA No.301 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.301 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Madhusudan Singhari, At- Vs. DCIT, Coircle-2(1), Manikarnika Sahi, PO/PS; Puri Bhubaneswar Town, Puri PAN/GIR No. ANMPS 4830 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasanta Ku. Mishra/P.K.Mishra, Advs Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2026 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13.2.2026 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10172/2019-20 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Prasanta Ku. Mishra/P.K.Mishra, ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue involved in this appeal is in regard to valuation of immovable property. It was the submission that the assessee had sold the property for Rs.22,44,000/-, but the bench mark value of the property was Rs.1,08,80,000/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had applied the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act. It was the prayer that the valuation report of

2 ITA No.301 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

the DVO has not been obtained by the Assessing officer. It was pointed out to ld AR that there is no provision for the AO to directly refer such matter to the DVO and the assessee has to pray for the valuation report from the DVO. It was the prayer of ld AR that admittedly, the assessee did not know the procedure and had not requested for the valuation by the DVO. It was the submission that the property was sold at a substantial less value and the bench mark value was excessive. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee would make request the valuation to be done by the DVO. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR did not raise any serious objection. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the AO has not referred the matter to the DVO for valuation. It is the contention of ld AR that the assessee has not requested the AO for DVO valuation as he did not know the provisions. Considering the submission of ld AR and considering substantial variation between the bench valuation and actual sale price received, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for rea0.

djudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2026.

3 ITA No.301 /Ctc/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 25/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: Madhusudan Singhari, At- Manikarnika Sahi, PO/PS; Puri Town, Puri