NINEESHA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 794/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 July 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not justify the 25% addition and failed to follow the procedure for DVO valuation under Section 56(2)(x) as per High Court ruling. Despite the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities, the case is remanded to the AO for readjudication with proper opportunity, conditional on the assessee paying Rs.25,000/- costs to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a commercial property for Rs.59,94,000/-, while its Sub-Registrar Valuation was Rs.1,39,86,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) proposed to treat 25% of the differential amount of Rs.59,94,000/- as income under Section 56(2)(x), and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the lack of justification for taxing 25% of the differential property value under Section 56(2)(x) and the AO's failure to initiate DVO valuation, coupled with the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 15/07/2025Pronounced: 15/07/2025

आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 1.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →