MR. SHRIDHAR GANGARAM ANUMANDALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 8391/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 March 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and that crucial aspects, such as the DVO's valuation report, may not have been properly considered. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The CIT(A) upheld additions made by the AO under sections 56(2)(x)(b) and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the valuation report of the DVO was not considered and that the difference in agreement value and stamp duty value was within the permissible tolerance limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the DVO's valuation report and whether the additions made under sections 56(2)(x)(b) and 69 were warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x)(b),Section 69,Section 50C,Section 55A,Section 139(1),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 10/03/2026Pronounced: 13/03/2026

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2020-21, date of order 08.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income-Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 21.09.2022. 2 Mr. Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala

2.

When the appeal was call for hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee to represent this case. There is no application for seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of the dispute, we proceed to dispose of appeal ex parte qua for a

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →