Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 75,00,000, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 1,05,64,000. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 30,64,000 under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not refer the matter to the DVO to determine the difference between stamp duty value and market value. The Tribunal decided to remit the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was justified without referring the matter to the DVO for valuation.
Sections Cited
56(2)(x), 69, 115BBE, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
Assessment Year: 2020-21 Poonam Lakhmani…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 561 Block N New Alipore, Kol- 700053.. [PAN: ABQPL4291H] vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 17, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 07, 2025 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.06.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].
The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being an individual filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs.11,69,760/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of “investment in immovable property”. The assessee had purchased an immovable property i.e. shop measuring 950 sq. ft. in Kolkata in Charu Villa for a consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, whereas the stamp duty of the said property adopted by the stamp valuation authority was Rs.1,05,64,000/- . The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an addition
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed as the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition u/s 69 but confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the addition made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act amounting to Rs.30,64,000/- without referring to the case to the DVO as to whether there was actual difference between the stamp value and market value. The prayer of the ld. AR is that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide this issue afresh after receiving report from the DVO.
The ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal before the Assessing Officer.
Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the lower authorities and find that the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.30,64,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act without referring this issue to the DVO. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer without taking the view that the matter should be referred to the DVO for determining the actual difference between the said market value and stamp value. Going over the facts of the case and considering the submissions of both the parties, we are inclined to remit the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a direction to the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer before deciding this issue be 2
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 7th October, 2025.