SOMEN BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA ASSAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 181/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 August 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without referring the valuation to the DVO, which is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-assessment after obtaining a DVO report.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property for ₹69.00 lacs, but the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,00,80,000/-. The AO made an addition of ₹31,80,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) without referring the valuation to the DVO. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) is valid when the valuation was not referred to the DVO. The procedural requirement of referring to the DVO for valuation.

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, ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’

For Appellant: Shri Prasanjit Das, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 27.08.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal by the assessee which were stated to be on account of non- receipt of the appellate order by the assessee. We find that the time taken in filing the appeal including the period of delay was stated to be on account of time taken in obtaining legal opinion as also the difficult terrain of Guwahati where travelling is hazardous and difficult. Considering the same, we find that the delay is for Bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore, we condone the same.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the ld. AO.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee has purchased the property in Kolkata (flat) for ₹69.00 lacs whereas, stamp value as per stamp valuation was ₹1,00,80,000/- and hence,

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2025.

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 →