AVINASH KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, we note that there is the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has moved a condonation petition. We find from the perusal of the condonation petition that the assessee is a non-resident Indian and employed outside India. It was further stated that due to such bonafide reasons of assessee being out of country, the required documents could not be complied with in time and hence the appeal filing was delayed by 134 days. Considering the reasons to

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, confirming the order of the ld. AO, wherein the addition of ₹12,52,900/- was made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act.

The facts in brief are that the draft order u/s 144C(1) of the Act was forwarded to the assessee on 30.03.2023, which was challenged by the assessee before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and finally, the DRP passed the order on 25.04.2023. The ld. AO finally framed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 25.01.2024, where the addition of ₹12,52,900/- was made on account of difference between the valuation as per Stamp Valuation authority and the actual price paid for the property and the same was added u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act.

The ld. AO before making the addition did not refer the issue to the DVO in terms of provisions of Section 55 of the Act, despite being requested by the assessee by stating that the impugned property was situated in Mango Aera an outskirt in Jamshedpur where the market value of the property is below the stamp duty value.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the addition made by the ld. AO in the final assessment order in pursuance to the direction of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel is not as per the provisions of the Act. As the ld. AO has duty bound to refer the issue of valuation to the DVO in terms of Section 55 of the Act, where in his opinion the market value of the property is higher than the value at which the property was purchased by the assessee. Since, in the present case, the ld. AO has

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