Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 07 ITAT CK 2731

Omvati Devi vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: "SMC" New Delhi · Decided on 9 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 5756/Del/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 350 words

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 27.03.2026 having DIN & Order No.-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087989491(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 119 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Next comes the assessee/appellant’s raised ground that the learned lower authorities in their respective assessment and lower appellate findings inter alia erred in law and on facts in making additions u/s 56(2)(x) of Rs. 70.33 lakh and Rs. 5,59,500/- u/s 69 of the Act; respectively.

5.

That being the case, it is hardly in dispute that the impugned former addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act has been invoked by the learned departmental authorities against the assessee after noticing the difference between the actual paid purchase price of Rs. 4 lakhs and stamp price of Rs. 21.33 lakhs of the agricultural land purchased at his behest which prima facie falls in semi-urban area only. However, the lower have authorities made the impugned addition without making any statutory reference to the DVO as provided in section 56(2)(x) r.w. the 3rd and 4th Proviso(s) thereto, which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Case law CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) has settled the issue that such a reference is indeed mandatory in nature; u/s 50C, as appliable mutatis mutandis in sections 43CA, 56(2)(vii)or 56(2)(x) of the Act since all these statutory provisions are pari materia in nature. I, therefore, restore this issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to make necessary reference to the DVO to be followed by his consequential computation as per law.

All other remaining factual and legal issues between parties are kept open at this stage to be decided afresh.

8.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.