Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 553 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act – Valuation report of DVO – Held that:- The CIT(A) gave a detailed finding of the order which has not been assailed on facts nor any contrary judgement has been brought so as to persuade as to upset the finding - The observation of the AO does not refer to any incriminating evidence found during the search or even otherwise indicating that any additional/unrecorded payment other than what is paid and disclosed in the sale deed executed between the Appellant and Sellers has passed hands - the order has been passed on the reasoning that despite being subjected to two consecutive searches nothing has been found and the assessment u/s 153A read with section 143(3) the department has failed to refer to any incriminating evidence found during the search indicating any unrecorded payment having been paid apart from the payment made in the disclosed sale deed. Relying upon KP Varghese Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ernakulam, And Another [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] - The two independent sales in the same vicinity wherein the price paid by the assessee is more than the consideration paid in the two instances cited by the assessee in Chhatarpur itself stands unrebutted on record - the DVO’s report the reliance has been placed on the transaction at Satbari, Mehrauli whereas the assessee’s transaction was at Chhatarpur the properties cannot be said to be identically situated in the absence of any factual arguments by the Revenue qua their similarity - Apart from that the circle rate for the relevant period has also been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) which stand un assailed - None of the relevant findings have been assailed nothing is placed to show that on the dissimilarity in the property considered by the DVO and the similarity in the 2 instances cited by the assessee in support of its claim is wrong on facts – Decided against Revenue. Jurisdiction of the AO to make addition – Absence of any incriminating documents during search u/s 132 of the Act – Held that:- The decision in LMJ International Ltd. vs JCIT [2007 (12) TMI 237 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E] followed - where the return of income has been processed u/s 143(1) or an assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) it cannot be said that the assessments are pending and in such cases if no incriminating material has been found during the search then additions based on items which were disclosed in the return of income already filed cannot be subjected to further scrutiny, leading to addition to income, in a proceeding under section 153A/153C of the Act – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
|