Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of ₹5,03,71,311/- made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, which was affirmed by the CIT(A). The core contention was that this addition for property valuation was made without referring the issue to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).
Held
The Tribunal found that the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was indeed made without a DVO report. It restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to conduct a de novo assessment, obtain a valuation report from the DVO, and provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether an addition under Section 56(2)(x) related to property valuation can be made by the Assessing Officer without referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer for a valuation report.
Sections Cited
56(2)(x)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
O R D E R
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.03.2025 for the AY 2021-22.
The assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT (A) affirming the addition of ₹5,03,71,311/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act without referring the issue to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the addition made by the ld. AO without referring the issue to the DVO for valuation of the property and the addition was made u/s 56(2)(X) of the Act, which is wrong and against the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025.