VINOD SHRIDHAR LOKHANDE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 362/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 October 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and material on record, noted the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) regarding the property purchase. The assessee emphasized having a valuation report supporting the fair market value on the agreement date, which was not filed during assessment, and that the AO did not refer the issue to the DVO. Acknowledging the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vinod Shridhar Lokhande, appealed an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO received information that the assessee purchased an immovable property in FY 2017-18 for Rs. 5,00,000/- against a market value of Rs. 11,00,000/-. As the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2018-19, the AO believed income had escaped assessment and issued a notice. The assessee contended the property was purchased for Rs. 5,00,000/- with consideration paid from a bank account, and an agreement was executed on 03.08.2015 with an advance payment. The assessee argued section 56(2)(x)(b) should apply based on the agreement date value, not the sale deed registration date. The AO, unconvinced, invoked section 144 and added the differential amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, assessing total income at Rs. 6,00,000/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the purchase of immovable property, considering the agreement was entered into in FY 2015-16 and the SRO/guideline value was Rs. 5,00,000/-? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition by overlooking that the agreement for the property was entered into in FY 2015-16, and the SRO/guideline value at that time was Rs. 5,00,000/-, which should be the basis for tax computation. The assessee also claimed the CIT(A) erred in relying on the AO's findings despite the assessee's explanations. Furthermore, the assessee obtained a valuation report supporting the fair market value on the agreement date, which could not be filed during assessment. The AO also failed to refer the disputed issue to the DVO. The assessee requested another opportunity to present evidence. 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 147,Section 144,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed usec 147 r.w.s144 of the Act sustaining the addition u/sec. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld. DR. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted

3.

The brie

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 →