SHEETAL SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 444/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2026AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not make proper submissions regarding property valuation before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the issue of property valuation was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Ground No. 3 was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 70,28,319/-, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 88,27,200/-. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 17,98,881/- under Section 56(2)(b)(vii) without referring the valuation to the DVO. The assessee also challenged the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38).

What were the issues?

Whether the fair market value of the property should be considered as on the date of agreement and whether the matter should be referred to the DVO for valuation. Also, the validity of disallowing exemption under Section 10(38).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(b)(vii),Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 04/05/2026Pronounced: 04/05/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, PUNE [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-13/10356/2017-18 dated 18.12.2025. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The assessee in this appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that they Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld AO in adding back Rs. 17,98,881/- u/s 56(2)(b)(vii) when he should have considered the fair market value of the property purchased on the date of agreement since part consideration was paid through banking channels. 2. For that they Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld AO in adding back Rs. 17,98,881/-u/s 56(2)(b)(vii) when he should have referred the valuation of fair market value of the property purchased on agreement to the DVO. the date of

2 ITANo.444Kol/2026 3. For that they Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld AO in disallowing exemption Rs. 4,51,175/- u/s 10(38) when all the documentary evidences were filed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the addition made simply on suspicion and surmises is liable to be deleted specially when the material used against the assessee were not supplied to the assessee and no opportunity to cross examine the parties was allowed to the assessee.”

4.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he did not wish to press ground No.3 of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, ground no.3 of assessee’s appeal stands dismissed as not pressed. 5. In regard to ground nos.1 & 2, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.70,28,319/-. The purchase consideration as per the stamp duty authority was of Rs.88,27,200/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer without referring the matter to the DVO had determined the difference of Rs.17,98,881/- and added the same as income u/s 56(2)(b)(vii) of the Act. It was prayed that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the matter to the DVO. It was also submitted that the valuation is to be taken as on the date of agreement. 6. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not made its

3 ITANo.444Kol/2026 requisite submissions before the Assessing Officer in regard to the valuation of the immovable property purchased. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issue in this appeal in regard to valuation of immovable property is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 04/05/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →