Rajeev Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Rajeev Mittal appealed to the ITAT Delhi against an order from the CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi, contesting additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The AO had added ₹52.37 lakh under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, based on the difference between the property’s purchase price and its fair market value (FMV) as determined by the Department Valuation Officer (DVO). Additionally, the AO disallowed a depreciation claim of ₹5.09 lakh on a building and added ₹49.08 lakh under Section 68, citing unexplained loan creditworthiness. The CIT(A) upheld the depreciation and loan additions but directed the AO to re-compute the property addition based on a revised DVO valuation.
The ITAT admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee, particularly regarding the DVO’s valuation report being time-barred under Section 142A(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the DVO’s report, submitted beyond the statutory six-month period, was invalid. The ITAT agreed, ruling that the valuation report was indeed time-barred and, therefore, the addition based on it was unsustainable. Regarding the depreciation and loan additions, the assessee’s counsel claimed to possess additional documents not previously presented. The ITAT, to ensure fairness and provide an opportunity for comprehensive evidence consideration, decided to restore these issues to the AO. The AO was directed to re-examine these matters after giving the assessee a chance to present the additional evidence and provide a hearing. Consequently, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, requiring the AO to conduct a fresh review based on the new evidence.
