“section 56(2)(vii)”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)741 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 56(2)(vii) is Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (149 ITD 363), cited in 104 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 56(2)(vii)

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT

149 ITD 363 · 2014 · ITAT

104

citing judgments

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah, Citation No.

160 Taxmann 276 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aims to prevent tax evasion by treating certain payments made by closely held companies to shareholders or their concerns as dividends.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

10 SCC 529 · Reported

citing judgments

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 18. R. Dalmia v. CIT (Central)

186 ITR 313 · 1990 · High Court

citing judgments

The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development. The revenue observed these withdrawals during search proceedings, indicating potential issues with the assessee's tax compliance.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star Chemical (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

12 Taxmann.com 496 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

When lending money is not the business of a company, loans or advances given to an assessee-shareholder are treated as deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) apply to a company that has taken a loan from its subsidiary.

CIT v. Smt Padma S. Bora

54 Taxmann.com 319 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

A debt written off in the assessee's books as irrecoverable, which was advanced in the ordinary course of business, is allowable as a deduction. The court noted that the Tribunal may have made a mistake in reproducing the Commissioner's findings, but this did not raise a substantial question of law regarding the allowability of bad debts.

Judgments citing section 56(2)(vii)

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Hari Shanker Gupta, Kanpur

The Appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 648/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit V. Hari Shanker Gupta Circle – 1(1) 533/2/1, Guba Garden Kanpur Kalyanpur, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpg4405G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 03 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Govind Krishna, C.A

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was of Rs.1,79,68,225/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). He further submitted that the NFAC, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal

Shri Kaushik Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)

Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

Learned AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the transaction for purchase of immovable property, the agreement for which was entered into ... Financial Year 2013-14 through the allotment letter. 3. As per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value

Hifzur Rehman Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 163/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

2. The assesse has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Addition of Rs 34,70,000 against purchase of Mithaiwala Building under Section 56(2)(vii)(b): a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... confirming the addition of Rs. 34,70,000. b. The pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, covers only situation where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without any consideration. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

order u/s 148A (d) and notice u/s 148 were totally ignored (Pg 29 of paper book). GROUND NO. 2 & 5: INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56(2)(vii)(b) LAND AND/OR BUILDING NOT ACQUIRED-PREMISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Deeming fiction of the provision ... unaccounted funds employed. GROUND NO 6: BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO S.56(2) (VII)(B) DENIED WRONGFULLY The Provisos 1st and 2nd of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Sh. Pankaj Meena, Jaipur

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 769/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 68

made payment on behalf of the partner or it can gift the advance payment made by it to the seller as per section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Ld. AO also noted that the assessee submitted that the firm has made payment and the transfer has been completed ... case of the firm and not the partner i.e. the appellant. Therefore, the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of the property purchase by the firm, in the hands of the partner i.e. appellant cannot be sustained

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar, Chimur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

However, the market value of the said immovable property was shown at Rs. 1,06,13,000/-, hence, in this case, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) has been attracted and therefore the Ld. AO in order to verify the said transaction, vide show cause notice dated 24/12/2019, show

Vijay Shankar Pandey, Kolkata vs. Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 695/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vijay Shankar Pandey,………………..………Appellant 4/7A, Commerce House, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Afspp7040Q] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,……………….…..….…....Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Sarita Chobey, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 56(2)(vii)

Authority from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till

Late Ashok Kumar Murarka Represented Through Wife and Legal Heir Rajbala Murarka, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 887/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.887/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Late Sri Ashok Kumar Muraka, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By Wife & Legal Heir Vs. Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Smt. Rajbala Muraka, Chennai. No.22, Kolandai Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaqpa 7031D]

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.A (Virtual)

Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

whereby sale consideration was fixed, therefore the A.O was required to check value as on 20.10.2011 while invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. :- 3 -: Hemalatha ... therefore, the market value as on the date of registration of property on 17.07.2015 is to be considered for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee entered into an agreement

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the AO, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares was Rs.135.71. The AO was of the view that section 56(2)(vii) of the Act has application and accordingly, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 3(4), Thane

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

ITA 1851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Parekh, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69A

whereas the additions involved in AY 2015-16 were under section 68 of Rs. 10,85,690 on account of agricultural income and section 56(2)(vii) of Rs. 13,33,16,700 which are entirely different in nature and scope. I.T.A. No. 1851/Mum/2025 2 3. On the facts

Dhruv Sanjay Gupta, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5749/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

According to the assessee, these gifts were received on the occasion of his marriage and therefore, is exempted under the proviso to section 56(2)(vii). However, according to the ld. Assessing Officer, these gifts were received by the assessee after the occasion of the marriage, based on dates ... Officer has taken a microscopic view of the meaning “on the occasion of marriage” without going into the intent of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii), since the cheques were realised at a later date which were given by the respective donors and were received by the assessee

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)

source of funds for purchase of the property. The AO subsequently issued a show cause notice asking the assessee as why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked in assessee's case considering that the market value of the said property ... under dispute. The DVO determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,52,19,000/-. The AO accordingly made an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 50,96,667/- being assessee's share of the difference between purchase consideration

Sathyanaryanan Saigeetha, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

changed the stand without adequate proof that gift was meant to be her husband just to avoid the rigour of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. As the husband’s aunt is not relative as per proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the AO has correctly

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

donor to the appellant on 09/04/2009 itself, as per the letters of the donors as referred above. Now, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 were introduced for the first time w.e.f ... shares were already gifted in the name of the appellant by the donors prior to that. Thus, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is not applicable to the Appellant so far, the above-mentioned gifts are concerned. It is only because

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Vijay Manubhai Hirpara, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 668/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Arun Dwivedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi

ITA 6293/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Ankita Bhartia, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 386/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

parents and relatives on the occasion of her marriage therefore, the jewellery received by the assessee clearly falls within the exemption provided under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He also submitted that as per CBDT Circular No. 347-E I.T.A. No.386/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14 3 dated 20/05/1978

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)

even not bothered to refer the same to the Department Valuation Officer. 3.12 It would be pertinent to reproduce the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) which reads as under - Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed ... they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 3.13 In the present case the Assessing Officer has made addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) without making reference to the Valuation officer as required by the 11 RAM RAJ CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR above proviso