VISHNURAM JOSHI,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

ITA 604/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 October 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vishnuram Joshi, appealed against an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The original assessment order, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 15,67,836. The case was reopened because the assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 13,12,500, while the stamp valuation authority determined its fair market value at Rs. 26,37,000. The Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs. 13,24,500 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and also disallowed a claim of Rs. 80,706 under Section 80C. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 13,24,500 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was made due to the difference between the stamp duty value (Rs. 26,37,000) and the sale consideration (Rs. 13,12,500). It was noted that the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter to the DVO as provided under Section 50C(2), despite the assessee's request. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not consider the approved valuer's report submitted by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings, stating that no reason was given for not furnishing it before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found it just and appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer. The valuation report dated 11.11.2024 was admitted as additional evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to refer the matter to the DVO and pass a fresh order after considering both valuation reports and affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be deleted. 2. Whether the addition sustained by the CIT(A), which adopted the property value as per circle rates without obtaining the opinion of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per Section 50C(2), is against the provisions of law and liable to be deleted. 3. Whether the additional evidence (valuation report of an approved valuer) related to the fair market value of the property should be admitted and considered. 4. Whether the fair market value of the property is not more than the actual purchase value, thus rendering the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) unsustainable. Assessee's Contentions: - The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) sustained by the CIT(A) by adopting circle rates is erroneous as it ignored the valuation report of an approved valuer dated 11.11.2024. - The Assessing Officer declined the assessee's request for a reference to the DVO for determining the fair market value, contrary to Section 50C(2). - The CIT(A) neither admitted nor considered the approved valuer's report. - The assessee prays for admission of the additional evidence and remand to the Assessing Officer for reference to the DVO. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Senior Departmental Representative supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 80C,Section 250,Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2013-14/10146637 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC (DELHI) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2014-15, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,67,836/-, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s 147 of the Act.

2.

Briefly stating, the assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. It came to the notice of the revenue that an immovable property was purchased by the assessee for the consideration of Rs. 13,12,500/- wh

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.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 624 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →