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

ITA 604/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 October 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vishnuram Joshi, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee had not filed a return of income. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the purchase of 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 (AO) 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 total income was determined at Rs. 15,67,836/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee is now before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 13,24,500/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was made on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration. It was noted that the AO did not refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2) despite the assessee's request, and the CIT(A) did not consider the approved valuer's report submitted during the first appellate stage, citing the lack of reasons for not furnishing it earlier. Consequently, the Tribunal found it just and appropriate to restore the matter to the AO. The valuation report dated 11.11.2024 was admitted as additional evidence. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the DVO, pass a fresh order after considering both valuation reports, and provide the assessee with 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? The assessee contends that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was based on circle rates without considering the valuation report of an approved valuer and without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per Section 50C(2). The assessee also argues that the fair market value is not more than the purchase value. The revenue, through the Sr. DR, supports the impugned order. 2. Whether the additional evidence (valuation report of an approved valuer) should be admitted? The assessee argues that this report is directly related to the addition and should be admitted, leading to the deletion of the addition sustained on this score. The CIT(A) had not admitted or considered this report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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