Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83High Court2015#618 most cited

What is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

159

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT · Section 50C · Section 50C(2) · DVO reference mandatory · Assessing Officer duty bound · stamp duty valuation dispute · guideline value difference · fair market value determination · capital gains Section 50C · valuation without assessee request

Also reported as

47 Taxmann.com 158225 Taxmann 211

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 147Section 250Section 144Section 148Section 54EC

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 50c(1)section 50csection 142asection 50section 43castamp duty valuefull value of considerationsection 55circle ratesection 56(2)(x)fair market value

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Sel Resources Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 679/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.679/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) SEL Resources Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward –3(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AAOCS1517P. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Phaneendra Nag, C.A. Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ :…

Tiruchangodu Ramasamy Khannaiyann Sarasuwathi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

ITA 3135/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…ing with the definition of Assessing Officer as per section 2(7A) of the Act cannot accede to such request placed before him. 22. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain :-13-: ITA No: 3135/Chny/2025 should be fixed merely…

M/S K G Construction, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 120/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2021-22 M/s K.G. Construction, vs. DCIT, 122/8 Goel House, Faizabad Road, Central Circle-1, Lucknow Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226016 PAN: AAKFK4805B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- 3, Lucknow under section 250 of th…

Vishal Navinchandra Shah, Jamnagar vs. Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 482/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Savla, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…shall refer the matter to a DVO before making any addition. 3. That the addition made under Section 50C is unjust, arbitrary and in gross violation of principles laid down by Hon'ble Courts including the binding decision of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal)]. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) as valid despite it being passed in breach of the assessee's fundamental right to be heard and without application of mind. 5. That the learned CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the stamp duty valuation is only a deeming fiction and…

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

…as on 13.07.1974. The capital gain had been considered by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.16,86,124/- without referring the matter to DVO as per decision of jurisdiction at High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 47 taxman.com 158 (Cal)//372 ITR 83 (Cal), in which case it has been held that the AO is duty bound to refer the matter to DVO, even though no specific request is made by the assessee. As the assessee declared the total capital gain in his return of income filed u/s 148 of the Income 3 Rina Ray Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.1,22,125/-and the total capital gain computed at Rs.16,86,124/-, th…

Dharam Vir Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7679/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7679/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Dharam Vir Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward-2(1)(2), Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad-201002 Ghaziabad-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bgnps6913C Assessee By: Sh. Govind Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081763232(1) Dated 15.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…gh 4. That being the case, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that both the lower authorities have nowhere made any statutory reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act which has been held mandatory in Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). I accordingly deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the learned assessing authority for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. All other issues are kept open at this stage. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Cou…

Islami Academy Trust, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6675/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Islami Academy Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-320, Dawat Nagar, Ward Exemption-1(2), Abul Fazl Enclave, Delhi. Jamia Nagar, New Dehi-110025. PAN: AAATI 5312 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Anandi Prasad, CA Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 6675/Del/ /2025 for assessment year 2018-19 arises against CI…

Sachin Vasant Masurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai- SR DR
Section 250Section 270Section 354Section 56(2)(x)

…ain Verma (HUF)[2017] 88 taxmann.com 840 (Delhi-Trib), et. al.]. Further, in this regard the P a g e | 6 ITA NO. 2060/Mum/2025 AY 2018-19 Sachin Vasant Masurkar following observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v/s CIT-(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) are relevant: we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub…

Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Issuing The Notice U/S 148. The Action Of The Ld. Ao Was Illegal & Therefore Deserves To Be Quashed Or Set Aside. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

…hat the assessee has not contested the adoption of DLC valuation under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, nor has any application or reference been made to the Stamp Valuation Officer under Section 47A of the said Act. As held in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) and consistently reiterated in multiple decisions, unless the assessee disputes the valuation before the appropriate authority under local stamp laws, the DLC value adopted for stamp duty purposes is binding and conclusive for the purpose of computation under Section 50C. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting the stamp…

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…e (or any notional value) without giving the taxpayer a chance to contest can be harsh; hence reference to DVO is the remedy to ensure only a realistic value is used. This principle was enunciated in cases like Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (Calcutta High Court, 372 ITR 83) and later echoed by other High Courts - the AO must address the taxpayer's grievance on valuation by seeking expert valuation, which was faithfully done here. Having availed that process, the assessee cannot now impugn the DVO's conclusion with mere self-serving statements. No material was produced to CIT(A) (nor before this Hon'ble Tribunal so f…

Ram Raj Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 48/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

…o the valuation officer. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT also rejected the request of the Department to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the case to the Valuation Officer. 3.14 In the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal. HC), the assessee sold a piece of land for Rs.10 lakhs and offered capital gains. However, the AO, CIT(A) & Tribunal held that as the market value of the land was assessed by the District Sub…

Clayking Minerals LLP, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Mehsana

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

ITA 82/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

…VO. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition made without such reference renders the assessment order void and legally untenable. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), which held that the AO, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, is duty-bound to fairly offer the assessee an opportunity to opt for DVO valuation under section 50C, even if not specifically requested. Similarly, the ITAT Ahmedabad in Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 3061/Ahd/2015) held that where the assessee disputes the stamp dut…

Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2443/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 263Section 50CSection 54ESection 54F

…s noted that Assessing Officer has not referred the issue to the DVOfor Valuation. 5.2 Regarding reference for valuation to the DVO in the context of Sec.50C(2) of the I.T.Act, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT reported in 372 ITR 83 / 47 Taxmann.com 158 observed that even where no prayer is made by Advocate representing the assessee who may not have been properly instructed in law, the Assessing Officer discharging a quasi-judicial function has bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law and ITA No.2443/…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2982/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…ia ::33 :: Revenue. It is noted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Revenue. It is noted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Revenue. It is noted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (372 ITR 83) Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (372 ITR 83) has held that, even if the has held that, even if the assessee has not requested for reference to DVO, but the assessee has not requested for reference to DVO, but the assessee has not requested for reference to DVO, but there exists difference between the actual sales value and the guideline value, then…

Hemant Dalakote, Haldwani vs. ACIT Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…argues that no such reference could be made in absence of assessee’s corresponding objections raised before the Assessing Officer u/s 50C(2) of the Act. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing contention in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) has settled the issue in assessee’s favour that such a section 50C(2) reference is indeed mandatory even if there is no objection coming from the taxpayer side. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very term…

Ishtiaq Ahmad Dulare, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.122/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Istiyaq Ahmad Dulare Income-Tax Officer, Shahzad Market, Jamia Urdu, Ward 4(3)(1), Aligarh. बनाम/ Vs. Medical Road, Civil Lines, Aligarh (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aifpd-8104-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Garh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 09-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27-03-2022. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee’S Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 148 Dated 30-03-2021 On The Fact That The Assessee Sold A Property For Rs.123.20 Lacs As Against Its Stamp Duty Value Of Rs.174.60 Lacs. Accordingly, The Differential Of Rs.51.40 Lacs Would Be Assessable U/S 56(2)(Viib). The Same Was Added To The Income Of The Assessee For Want

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Garh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

…ade to valuation officer. The Ld. AR also assailed the addition of unexplained investment on the ground that the investment was made form accounted sources only. 3. Considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (47 Taxmann.com 158), we set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment. The Ld. AO is directed to refer the valuation of the property to Ld. DVO to ascertain the correct market value of the property and re-adjudicate this issue as well as the issue of unexplained investment. The assessee is directed…

Usha Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

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

ITA 505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…That being the case, the Revenue could have hardly dispute the clinching fact that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made the reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act which has been held mandatory in view of Sunil Kumar Aggarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) in assessee’s favour, even if there is no objection coming from the taxpayer’s side. I accordingly, deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical…

Bhawani Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 387/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 50C(2)Section 55Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 387/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Bhawani Apartment Pvt. Ltd. 4/2, Agrasain Street, Liluah, Howrah-711204, West Bengal (Appellant) Assessee by Vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(2) Shanti Pally, Eastern Metropolitan, Opposite Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-711204 West Bengal (Respondent) Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR PAN No. AAECB4525A Revenue by Date of hearing: Date of pronouncement : Shri Bonnine Debbarama, DR 06.03.2025 12.03.2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against…

Nitin Chocrsey, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer Shivpuri, Shivpuri

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.138/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sh. Nitin Chocrsey Ito बनाम/ Chowksey Bhawan Shivpuri Ab Road, Kamalaganj, Shivpuri Vs. Mp – 473 551 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajfpc-1120-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…n from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has sought valuation of the property by Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). 2. In terms of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (47 Taxmann.com 158) which mandate such valuation by DVO, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the assessment stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to refer the valuation to DVO. The Ld. AO is directed to reframe the assessment. The assessee is directed to substantiate its valuation. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 3…

Dilip Kumar, Doranda Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle 1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 233/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurydilip Kumar, D.C.I.T., 4B, Dr. K.D. Choudhury Apartment, Circle-1, Vs. South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Adlpk 4085 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 50Section 50C(2)Section 54

…DVO u/s 50(C)(2) of the Act. Mr. Das vehemently contends that the assessee nowhere raised such a plea in the lower proceedings. I find no merit in Revenue's instant argument. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in Sunil Kr. Agarwal Vs CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer has to make the impugned reference, even if, there is no such plea raised at the assessee's behest. I therefore restore the instant former issue back to the Assessing Officer for further appropriate proceedings. He shall also examine the assessee's claim Section 54 deduction as Hon'ble Apex Cour…