Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a

(2) For any application made on or after July 1, 2022, under subdivision (1) of this subsection, if the assessed value of the real property that is the subject of such application is one million dollars or more and the application concerns the valuation of such real property, the applicant shall file with the court, not later than one hundred twenty days after making such application, an appraisal of the real property that is the subject of the application. Such appraisal shall be completed by an individual or a company licensed to perform real estate appraisals in the state. The court may extend the one-hundred-twenty-day period for good cause. If such appraisal is not timely filed, the court may dismiss the application, except that for any application made on or after July 1, 2022, but prior to July 1, 2024, that was dismissed due to such appraisal having been submitted to the assessor of the town or city in which such real property is situated rather than the court, the applicant may make another application with the court, provided the applicant (A) had provided notice to the court of such submission to the assessor, and (B) makes such application not later than September 1, 2024.

(b) The court shall have power to grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains, upon such terms and in such manner and form as appear equitable, and, if the application appears to have been made without probable cause, may tax double or triple costs, as the case appears to demand; and, upon all such applications, costs may be taxed at the discretion of the court. If the assessment made by the board of tax review or board of assessment appeals, as the case may be, is reduced by the court, the applicant shall be reimbursed by the town or city for any overpayment of taxes, together with interest and any costs awarded by the court, or, at the applicant's option, shall be granted a tax credit for such overpayment, interest and any costs awarded by the court. Upon motion, the court shall, in event of such overpayment, enter judgment in favor of such applicant and against such city or town for the whole amount of such overpayment, less any lien recording fees incurred under sections 7-34a and 12-176 , together with interest and any costs awarded by the court. The amount to which the assessment is so reduced shall be the assessed value of such property on the grand lists for succeeding years until the tax assessor finds that the value of the applicant's property has increased or decreased.

Cited. 226 C. 407; 227 C. 826; 228 C. 23; 229 C. 618; 231 C. 731. To the extent that conditional approvals deprive taxpayers of immediate economic returns from their investment, such conditional approvals raise issues only of valuation, which properly may be addressed only by appeals under section. 232 C. 335. Cited. Id., 392; 236 C. 710; 240 C. 192; Id., 469; Id., 475; 241 C. 382; Id., 749. Bar to action must at any time use as its initial reference point the assessment date and not the date of the decennial revaluation. 242 C. 363. Judgment of Appellate Court in 41 CA 421 reversed. Id., 550. Cited. Id., 727. Subsequent title holder has no greater rights to challenge prior assessment than were possessed by its immediate assignor or by any prior assignee from the owner of a property at the time of assessment. 249 C. 1. Allegations of certain violations of public policy, such as a person's entering into an invalid contract or unauthorized practice of law, do not bar the person from a property tax appeal. 253 C. 255. Trial court rejected plaintiff's appeal of assessment for lack of credible evidence to establish aggrievement, and not because the going concern income capitalization approach to valuation is not permitted or recognized. 308 C. 87. Issue of city's wrongdoing is a proper consideration in property tax appeal pursuant to section; evidence of wrongdoing is not irrelevant as a matter of law as to the issue of an award of interest. 320 C. 332
of assessment for lack of credible evidence to establish aggrievement, and not because the going concern income capitalization approach to valuation is not permitted or recognized. 308 C. 87. Issue of city's wrongdoing is a proper consideration in property tax appeal pursuant to section; evidence of wrongdoing is not irrelevant as a matter of law as to the issue of an award of interest. 320 C. 332. Plaintiff property owner and taxpayer aggrieved by decision of the board of assessment appeals, but who was not a party to the proceedings before the board, has standing under section to bring an appeal to the trial court. Id., 535. Service of the appeal, rather than the filing of the application in court, must be completed within the two month limitation period. 324 C. 528, 544.

Cited. 31 CA 115; Id., 793; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 618; 35 CA 269; 38 CA 158; Id., 165; 40 CA 64; 41 CA 249; Id., 421; 42 CA 318; 43 CA 169; 44 CA 494; Id., 517; 46 CA 338. Assessor's method that treated plaintiff's properties as individual lots rather than one merged lot resulted in unfair treatment and a wrongful assessment, and therefore, plaintiff was aggrieved. 61 CA 834. Sec. 22a-45 does not limit property owner's remedy pursuant to this section. 80 CA 630. Plaintiff may not limit parameters of the court's valuation determination by challenging only one portion of the assessment because court determinations under section are de novo and court must arrive at its own conclusions by weighing all the evidence regardless of any alleged judicial admission as to scope of review; defendant town is not required to file a special defense under section; plaintiff who attempted to limit court's review to only one portion of an assessment was not deprived of due process when entire assessment was reviewed because Connecticut law has consistently held that trial court exercises de novo review. 84 CA 473. Statute allows taxpayer to challenge an illegal assessment outside prior statutorily mandated revaluation period and such appeal does not constitute impermissible request for interim revaluation. 85 CA 480. Section creates cause of action for taxpayer aggrieved by excessive and wrongful valuation of property, but there is no private right of action for taxpayer against municipal officials in individual capacities for alleged wrongdoing in tax assessment of property not owned or leased by or directly connected to taxpayer. 119 CA 453. Property owner must serve town with complaint and citation within 2 months of board's notice. 158 CA 565, 576; judgments affirmed, see 324 C. 528, 544. Common law unjust enrichment claim unavailable to plaintiff whose property was overtaxed for 25 years as claims are time limited under statutory scheme whether excess taxes are paid due to clerical errors, improper property valuations, or “manifestly excessive'' assessments. 211 CA 441.