ITAT Restricts Section 56(2)(x) Addition to Rs 13.23 Lakh After DVO Values Property at Rs 1.74 Crore:

ITAT Restricts Section 56(2)(x) Addition to Rs 13.23 Lakh After DVO Values Property at Rs 1.74 Crore

The ITAT Kolkata holds Stamp Value cannot be substituted for actual property consideration without referring matter to DVO.

ITAT Partly Allows Appeal

authorSaimadateSep 28, 2026
Last update on Sep 28, 2026

The assessee is Niraj Agarwal who was engaged in the business of trading stainless-steel products and filed his return of income for AY 2024-25 declaring total income of Rs 6,96,690. Along with two other co-owners, the assessee purchased two parcels of land for an aggregate consideration of Rs 1,35,12,847, whereas the stamp valuation of the properties was Rs 4,15,38,746.

Best Salary Accounts for Corporate Employees: Zero AMB, Free Debit Card & Cashback

The AO treating the difference of Rs 2,79,75,899 as deemed income under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, made an addition of Rs 93,25,300, being one-third share attributable to the assessee. The AO made the addition without referring the valuation dispute to the DVO. The NFAC upheld the addition.

Before the Tribunal, it was brought to the Tribunal's notice that the property had subsequently been referred to the DVO in the case of another co-owner. The DVO valued the property at Rs 1,74,84,000, as against the declared consideration of Rs 1,35,12,847.

CBI Arrests Key Accused in US$7.21 Million Transnational Cyber Fraud Case

The Tribunal observed that the stamp value determined by the stamp valuation authority could not simply be substituted as the sale consideration without referring the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) could not be maintained in its original form.

GSTAT Releases Inaugural E-Journal Featuring 20 GST Cases and 7 Anti-Profiteering Cases

Taking the DVO valuation into consideration, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the difference between Rs 1,74,84,000 and the declared consideration of Rs 1,35,12,847.  Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs 80,01,582. The appeal filed by Niraj Agarwal was accordingly partly allowed.

About Author

LinkedIn

Saima

Content Writer

Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
478
Up Next

Loading suggestions…