PADMALOCHAN JENA,BALASORE vs. ITO-WARD 1,BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 424/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 June 2026AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after obtaining a valuation report from the DVO, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 8,00,000, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 43,40,000. The Assessing Officer added the difference as income without referring the matter to the DVO.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred in determining the property's value without referring it to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(b)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 02/06/2026Pronounced: 02/06/2026

PerBench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2015- 16/10275536 order dated 25/02/2026 for the assessment year 2026-17. 2. it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. The sale consideration as per the stamp duty authority was of Rs.43,40,000/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer without referring the matter to the DVO had determined the difference of R

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →