BALAI ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1), , KOLKATA

ITA No.1178/Kol/2025
Assessment Year : 2016-17

P a g e 2 | 3

appeal. After considering the condonation petition and hearing the parties, I am satisfied that there was reasonable cause in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. Moreover, the delay is only a short period. Therefore, I condone the delay of 30 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, order u/s.250
dated 6.2.2025 passed by the ld CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,04,000/- as deemed income from properties to be let out under section 23(1) of the Act.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.5,99,999/- as income from other sources by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief and confirming addition to the tune of Rs.46,530/- as out of book expenses.”
4. Ld A.R. of the assessee by referring to the grounds of appeal submitted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Ld AR submitted that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that these issues can be examined and the assessment be made afresh after taking into account all the issues and also the DVO report in respect of addition made u/s.56()(vii)(b) of the Act.
5. After considering the rival contentions, I find the request of ld AR to be fair and reasonable. I , therefore, set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and