UTPAL SHASMAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2292/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 August 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO as per Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the consideration value. Passing the order without the DVO's report was a violation.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income, and the case was selected for scrutiny regarding the purchase value of property being less than stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the DVO, but passed the assessment order without waiting for the DVO's report due to time bar.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer erred by passing an assessment order without waiting for the DVO's report after referring the case to the DVO for valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C(2),Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Swatee Baid, AR
For Respondent: Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2292/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Utpal Shasmal Vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata A-35, Mahatma Gandhi Road Hardevpur, Kolkata-700082 [PAN: AQDPS9722Q] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Swatee Baid, AR Respondent by : Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 29.04.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,53,180/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS in ‘Limited Category’ on the issue of ‘Purchase Value of Property less than the Stamp Duty Value’. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee requested the Assessing Officer to refer the case to DVO for ascertaining fair market value. Though,

ITA No.2292/Kol/2026 Utpal Shasmal; A.Y: 2015-16 the Assessing Officer referred the case to the DVO, the DVO has not filed any report on time. The Ld. Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order on 28.12.2017 without waiting for the Report of the DVO, as the Assessment has to be passed before the case gets time barred on 31.12.2017. The Ld. Assessing Officer, accordingly made addition of Rs.23,22,611/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the Assessment order dated 28.12.2017, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 29.04.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Assessee has requested before the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the DVO. The Ld. Assessing Officer has also referred the subject property/ transactions to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value. However, the Assessing Officer has not waited for the report of the DVO and hurriedly passed the Assessment Order in view of time barring. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the Assessment Order without referring to the DVO is clear violation of section 50(2) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also committed error in dismissing the Appeal. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. Page | 2

ITA No.2292/Kol/2026 Utpal Shasmal; A.Y: 2015-16 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the Assessment Order, the Assessee has indeed requested the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the DVO for ascertaining its fair market value. The Ld. Assessing Officer has also referred the case of the Assessee to the DVO Valuation Cell to ascertain the real market value as on the date of registration of the property. However, as the DVO has not filed any report on time and the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order on 28.12.2017 to avoid time barred in assessment without waiting for the DVO Report.

6.

It is well-settled that when the Assessee disputes the value of consideration and subsequently requests the Assessing Officer for referral to DVO, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO as per section 50C(2) of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has though referred the case to DVO, however passed the Assessment Order without procuring the Report of the DVO.

7.

In view of the above, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act and consider the report of the DVO and pass

ITA No.2292/Kol/2026 Utpal Shasmal; A.Y: 2015-16 the Assessment Order afresh. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment afresh.

8.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 50C(2)

All 293 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →