ASHA GOEL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the subsequent DVO valuation report, obtained after the assessment, was crucial evidence to rebut the AO's findings. The CIT(A)'s refusal to admit this report was deemed incorrect, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold shares of ITMPL and the Assessing Officer (AO) alleged undervaluation, leading to an addition of Rs. 6,08,400/- on account of escaped capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, refusing to admit a subsequent DVO valuation report as additional evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether a subsequent DVO valuation report, obtained after the assessment, can be admitted as additional evidence before the CIT(A) to rebut the AO's findings on share valuation?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 26.09.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, that was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20, dated 19.12.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on fact and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.608400/- on account of valuation of shares in his names which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted.
Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law and failed to appreciate the valuation report submitted and in a similar case assessed at Mumbai under s
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.
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
