Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack
Ashish Kumar Panda,Ganjam vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ... on 18 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.16/CTK/2026
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Ashish Kumar Panda ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur
Vs
At-Banibihar, P.O/PS-Aska, ITO, At P.O/P.S-Berhampur,
Dist-Ganjam, 761110, Odisha Dist-Ganjam, Odisha-761110
(PAN: AUNPP3677P)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra, Prashant Kumar
Mishra & Narahari Swain, ARs
Revenue by : Shri Sishir Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 18.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026
ORDER
PER BENCH:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] in appeal no.NFAC/2014-15/10202815 dated 09.04.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra, Prashant Kumar Mishra & Narahari Swain, ARs, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sishir Kumar Dash, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
ITA No.16/CTK/2026Ashish Kumar Panda; AY: 2015-16
3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had purchased a property being a residential property on 19.11.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. It was the submission that the stamp valuation of the said property was Rs.83,57,232/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer without applying the provisions of section 50C brought to taxation the difference of Rs.28,57,232/- between the purchase consideration and stamp duty. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has not referred the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It was the submission that the addition is liable to be deleted.
4. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that this is an error which has happened in the assessment order, the issue should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the provisions of section 50C and to apply the provision thereon.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the DVO for valuation. It should be done only by invoking section 50C of the Act. Here, it would be worthwhile to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi reported in [2020] 120 taxmann.com 187 (Madras), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that the guideline value was not actual fair market value and it is only an indicator. This being so, it is admitted that the provisions of section 50C has to be invoked and the valuation should also be done by the DVO and the same has not been done by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for applying the provisions of section 50C after referring the matter to the DVO and granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claims.
2 ITA No.16/CTK/2026Ashish Kumar Panda; AY: 2015-16
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 18th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan]
लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member
Dated: 18.03.2026.
RS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,
5. CIT(DR),
//True copy//
By order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS
3