RAMSHREE,ETAWAH vs. E-ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation. Therefore, it was imperative to refer the matter to the Department of Valuation Officer (DVO) for a fresh valuation. The assessment was restored back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication based on the DVO's valuation.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased a property for Rs. 40,800/- while its stamp duty valuation was Rs. 27.31 Lacs. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26.90 Lacs under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO based on the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty valuation is sustainable without referring the matter to the DVO for valuation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2019-20) Ramshree Income-tax Officer, बनाम/ 224, Purbiya Tola, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah. Vs. Etawah – 206001 (UP). �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. DRVPR-5915-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 18-10-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 11-03-2024. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.26.90 Lacs u/s 56(2)(x)(b) on the allegation that the assessee purchased a property for Rs.40,800/- as against its stamp duty valuation of Rs.27.31 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
We find that the impugned addition has been made on the ground that there was differential in the purchase price of the property and its stamp duty valuation. The assessee is disputing the valuation. Therefore, it would be imperative to make a reference to DVO. For the said purpose, the assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in terms of DVO valuation. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)(b)
- Vinod Shridhar Lokhande, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 2(3), NagpurITA 362/NAG/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- Firoz Khan Jamil Khan Pathan, Bhandara vs ITO Ward-2 Bhandara, BhandaraITA 79/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- L7 Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 7801/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs L7 Construction Private Limited, MumbaiITA 7725/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs L7 Media Private Limited, NagpurITA 7724/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanatan Bal vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026