SMT HAIMONTI SHUKLA,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2018-19 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.12.2023.

The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the assessment year in question on the issue of investment in immovable property. During the assessment proceedings, ld. AO examined the issue related to investment in immovable property purchase value of property along with income disclosed u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act which was substantially less than the value as per stamp duty imposed by the I.T.A. No.: 138/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt Haimonti Shukla. authority. In this regard, notice was issued to the assessee and assessee furnished its reply along with various details. The ld. AO from the examination of the registration deed noticed that flat bearing no. B-4, 3rd Floor, A-9/49, Kalyani total amount of consideration paid by the assessee as per registration deed was at Rs. 23,00,100/-. However, the market value of the property as per stamp valuation authority was at Rs. 30,15,300/- as information furnished by the assessee. The ld. AO after examining the various aspect of the case he found that difference in value of purchase property u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act was of Rs. 7,15,200/- and added to the income of the assessee by determining the total taxable income at Rs. 13,76,630/- in the hands of the assessee. Doing so, the ld. AO had referred to valuation of the alleged property to DVO. However, the report of DVO was not available while framing the assessment order as waiting for such report assessment proceedings were getting barred by limitation. Therefore, he made the assessment order on the basis of material available on the record.

Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee went into appeal before ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds. However main grievance of the assessee is that while framing the assessment order the ld. AO did not consider the DVO’s report while making the addition against the assessee and even before the ld. CIT(A) no such reports were furnished. Therefore, another opportunity may be given to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the ld. AO with a direction to re-examine the issue after considering DVO’s report which was called by the AO while framing the assessment order. 5. The ld. D/R was fair enough do not to object to such prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record find force in the contention made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. Since, while passing the assessment order, DVO’s report was not considered by both the authorities below, therefore, in the interest of Page 2 of 3