FIROZ KHAN JAMIL KHAN PATHAN,BHANDARA vs. ITO WARD-2 BHANDARA , BHANDARA

ITA 79/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for the first issue concerning the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b), the DVO's valuation report, dated 31.03.2024, was not available to the AO when the assessment order was passed on 06.03.2024. Therefore, this issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, along with the evidence submitted by the assessee. For the second issue regarding the sources of purchase of property, the Tribunal, considering the audited financial statements and availability of own funds, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted both disputed issues to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Firoz Khan Jamil Khan Pathan, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Income Tax Department received information indicating the assessee purchased property below stamp duty value, triggering Section 56(2)(x)(b). The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148A(d) and subsequently a notice under Section 148. The AO found the property was purchased for Rs. 10,00,000/- with a market value of Rs. 33,23,000/-, leading to an addition of Rs. 23,23,000/- under Section 56(2)(x)(b). Additionally, the AO made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained investment in the property. The total income was assessed at Rs. 42,03,220/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's additions. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was justified in affirming the AO's addition of Rs. 23,23,000/- under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the purchase of property below stamp duty value. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was justified in affirming the AO's addition of Rs. 11,96,480/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the sources of purchase of property. Assessee's Contentions: The Ld. AR argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action. Regarding the first issue, it was submitted that the DVO's valuation report was not available during assessment proceedings and was received subsequently. The Ld. AR emphasized that the property was a distress sale and presented a valuation report dated 31.03.2024. For the second issue, the Ld. AR referred to audited financial statements and availability of own funds. The assessee relied on a factual paper book. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)(b),Section 69,Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 194IA,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in affirming the order of the AO in making an addition to the tune of Rs. 23,23,000/- u/sec. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in affirming the order of the AO in making an addition to the tune of Rs. 11,96,480/- u/sec. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other grou

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)(x)(b)

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →