KAILASH KRISHNAKUMAR BOTHARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-16(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

1. On and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte, without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard and without issuing the notice of hearing to the appellant;

2. On and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of Rs.66,28,047/- in respect of purchase of immovable property, on ignoring the appellant's prayer to make a reference to the valuation officer (DVO) on 3rd Proviso to Sec. 56(2)(x) r.w.s 50C(2) of the Act;

3. A humble prayer is made to refer the valuation matter to the valuation officer (DVO) on following the 3rd Proviso to Sec. 56(2)(x) r.w.s 50C(2) of the Act.

4. The Ld.CIT-(A), before confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of Rs.66,28,047/-, erred in not considering the locational disadvantages and several adverse factors to establish that the immovable property had 2 Kailash Krishnakumar Bothare been acquired at an adequate consideration.

2. Thus, the Ld. AR of the appellant argued before the ITAT as follows :- a) The Ld. AO ignored his request of referring the value of immovable property to the DVO and made an addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, which is not correct as per the provisions. b) As per section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to make a request to the Ld. AO to refer the valuation to DVO and the Ld. AO had to refer the same to arrive at the value and then only the difference can be assessed section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. c) A copy of the letter filed by the appellant before the Ld. AO dated 23.2.2021 requesting him to refer the valuation of property to DVO because the property was purchased as “distress sale” from seller as there are certain locational disadvantages to this property like passage, non-availability of water and basic facilities. d) The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that the appellant has not produced the “request for reference letter” to DVO and also no written submissions were filed before him. e) The Ld. AR of the appellant filed a paper book before the ITAT stating that the appellant had demonstrated that pages 8 & 9 of paper book shows copy of letter submitted before the Ld. AO requesting him to refer the valuation of property to DVO. It is also not disputed by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) that the Revenue has not referred the property to DVO for valuation.

3 Kailash Krishnakumar Bothare 5. The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025.