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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1178/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 September 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: the Tribunal. Moreover, the delay is only a short period. Therefore, I condone the delay of 30 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the request of the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) that the additions were made without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal late, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal relate to additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding deemed income from properties and income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO, which were confirmed by the CIT(A), should be examined afresh after referring the matter to the DVO, and whether the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 23(1),Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 P a g e 2 | 3

More judgments on Section 23(1)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →