CHHOGI NENARAM CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD3(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3123/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific legal grounds raised by the assessee. These grounds included the non-applicability of Section 56(2) of the Act due to an earlier sale agreement and the alternative plea for a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal found that the Learned CIT(A) had merely set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication without addressing these crucial legal arguments. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicate the legal grounds raised. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chhogi Nenaram Choudhary, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal emanated from an Assessment Order passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs. 3,00,21,000, while the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 4,44,42,665. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied section 56 of the Act and added the difference. The assessee contended that a sale agreement dated 04.05.2012 existed, making section 56(2) inapplicable, and also requested a reference to the Department of Valuation Officer (DVO). The Learned CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication without adjudicating these specific grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the assessee's contention that Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable due to a pre-existing sale agreement dated 04.05.2012, when determining the addition based on the difference between the property's purchase price and its stamp duty valuation? 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the assessee's alternative ground that a reference to the Department of Valuation Officer (DVO) should have been made to determine the fair market value of the immovable property? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that Section 56(2) of the Act was not applicable because a sale agreement was entered into on 04.05.2012. Without prejudice, the assessee also contended that a reference to the DVO should have been made. The assessee relied on the principle that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay, as evidenced by the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the Revenue was represented by the CIT-DR, Shri Mithun Shete. However, the specific contentions of the Revenue are not recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56,Section 56(2),Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 on 18.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022.

2.

There was a delay of 158 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

ITA No. 3123/PUN/2026

Findings and Analysis:

3.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. In this case, the assessee had purchased immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,21,000/-, however, the stamp authority has valued the property for the purpose of stamp duty at Rs.4,44,42,665/-. The AO applied the provisions of section 56 of the Act and added the difference between the actual value and stamp duty value. It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee entered into sale agreement dated 04.05.2012, hence, section 56(2) of the Act was not applicable. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground. It is also noted that before the Ld. CIT(A) without prejudice the assessee has raised the ground that reference to DVO to be made. The Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated this ground. In these facts and circumstances of the case, since, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the specific legal grounds raised by the assessee, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee.

4.

In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 15-10-2026 Ravi Kumar

ITA No. 3123/PUN/2026

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar Sunil Kumar More More // True Copy // Date: 2026.10.25 10:35:23 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 56

All 1,790 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →