NEETU AGNIHOTRI,RAEBARELI vs. INCOMEATAX OFFICER, RAEBARELI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation report did not consider crucial factors presented by the assessee regarding the property's condition and location. Consequently, the appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased an unfinished godown for Rs. 20,00,000. The DVO valued the property at Rs. 60,30,100, leading to an addition of Rs. 40,30,100 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(x). The assessee contended that the DVO did not consider the unfinished nature, remote location, and lower ground floor status of the property.
What were the issues?
Whether the DVO's valuation report adequately considered the actual condition and marketability of the property, and if the addition made under section 56(2)(x) was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.
(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, dated 18.02.2025, for the AY 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “That the appellant purchased unfinished godown situated at lower ground floor on Gata no.764 Village Ahmadpur Nazool Raebareli for Rs.2000000 excluding registration charges at Rs.464080 on 22-03-2018 from Mr. Javed son of Abdul Sattar and his brothers. The photo annexed on registered purchase deed dated 25/03/2018 of godown situated at lower ground floor on Gata no.764 Village Ahmadpur Nazool Raebareli and photo annexed on the valuation report dated 09-02-2021 issued by registered Income tax val
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 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026