od-14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/277/2026 AMIT ROY VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1), KOLKATA AND ORS. BEFORE : HON'BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE DATE : 14th August, 2026. Appearance : Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. …for petitioner. Mr. P. K. Bhowmic, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for respondents. The Court :- Affidavit of service filed in court today be taken on record. The petitioner in the instant case, inter alia, challenges the legality and the validity of the reference made to the departmental Valuation Officer vide letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-26/1088378438(1) dated 9th April, 2026 issued by the Assessing Officer being the respondent no.1 herein for the assessment year 2014-15. It is the case of the petitioner that the Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was passed by respondent no. 1 on 29th December, 2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the CITA for sake of brevity and convenience) on 16th March, 2026 qua the valuation of the property situated at Jharkhand. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows; a. That the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.3.2026 categorically directed that the stamp duty value of Rs. 57,92,000/- shall be adopted for computation of capital gains. Alternatively, the Assessing Officer was granted liberty to refer the mater to the DVO only if he was of the opinion that the Stamp Duty value did not reflect the fair market value. b. That in complete disregard and defiance of the said appellate direction, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the DVO vide letter dated 9.4.2026 seeking determination of fair market value. Such action is wholly without jurisdication and dehors the procedure prescribed under law. c. That it is a settled proposition of law that an Assessing Officer is bound by the direction of the Appellate Authority. Reliance was placed on on 52 ITR 335 [ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das]. d. That the petitioner had duly intimated respondent no. 1 via e-mail regarding the binding nature of the appellate order, but the same was ignored. Hence the present writ petition. e. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent income tax authorities vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits as follows; i. That the reference made to the DVO is an internal administrative step and has not yet been culmininated into a final order. ii. That the writ petition is premature and has been filed without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner. iii. That the petitioner ought to have awaited the outcome of the DVOs report and the consequential assessment order and thereafter could have availed the remedy of appeal. iv. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusing the materials on record this court observes as under. The operative portion of the order dated 16.3.2026 passed by the CIT (A) is quoted herein below: “The correct approach is to adopt the stamp duty value of Rs.57,92,000/- for computation of capital gains, or alternatively, make a reference to the DVO if the AO believes the stamp duty value does not reflect the fair market value.” From the above, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has itself provided for two alternatives. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the second alternative is a matter that requires clarification from the Appellate Authority who passed the said order. Furthermore, since the reference to the DVO has not yet culminated into a final Assessment Order, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition has been filed at a premature stage and is therefore not maintainable. In view of the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take necessary steps by filing an appropriate application before the CITA within a period of four weeks from date, seeking clarification of the operative portion of the order dated 16.3.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15. The CITA Appeals] shall consider and dispose of the said application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt thereof after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and such decision shall be communicated within a week thereafter. All rights and contention of both parties are kept open to be agitated at the appropriate stage. Since no affidavit in opposition has been filed, allegations made in the petition are deemed not to have been denied and admitted. (SMITA DAS DE, J.) pkd.