Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2564 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 - Held that:- For the provisions of Section 69 of the Act to apply it is necessary that the assessee should have made investments which were not recorded in the books of account. However, when no evidence, much less incriminating evidence, was found as a result of search to suggest that the assessee has made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned, no addition u/s 69 would arise. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi reported in (2010 (8) TMI 217 - Delhi High Court ) has held that the primary burden of proof in such cases is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the Valuation Officer. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal reported in (2010 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) has held that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income was on the Revenue and it was only when such burden was discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Where there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return no addition on the basis of report of the DVO could be made. The department has failed to prove understatement or concealment of income vis-a-vis purchase of immovable property. The AO has simply relied on the report of the DVO without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the surroundings circumstances. Addition u/s 69 deleted - Decided against revenue
|