Rachit Baid vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.27,34,310/-. An Assessment Order was passed on 03.02.2026 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making an addition on account of the difference between the fair market value of the purchase of immovable property and the purchase consideration as mentioned in the purchase deed. The difference was treated as income chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other source’ and an addition of Rs.9,77,278/- was made. The assessee requested both before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to refer the matter to the Department Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value. However, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) did not follow the procedure as laid down in the third proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act by not referring the valuation to the Department Valuation Officer.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) committed an error in not referring the matter to the Department Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Aero Pack Products Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Raghvendra Singh

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai “D” Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Azhar Rahaman Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

  Kolkata bench

• Shri Subhash N Jain vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 25(1)(3)

  Mumbai bench

• Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt Vs. ITO Circle-4