Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 470 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B – investments not fully disclosed - Average market value of land – Held that:- There was no basis for the AO to hold that price for both the parcel of land could not be the same and he erred in presuming that the excess area of land would not have been given without any extra payment being made by the assessee to the other company i.e. M/s. Vishnu Apartment Pvt. Ltd. over and above the amount which according to AO is the estimated value of 0.60 acres of land at Maidawas - the AO erred in presuming that the value of excess land received by the assessee company in exchange was valuing more without any material to base his finding on this aspect – Relying upon Commissioner of Income-Tax, AP Versus Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] - a business man knows his interest best and nobody has to sermonize how he should conduct his business. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the AO has failed to discharge the burden upon him to prove that the assessee has made investment at an understated value; and the same has not been brought on record in its books of account; and estimated the investment on the basis of average value of land which is erroneous without any evidence on record to substantiate his view that the appellant/ assessee has paid more than what was shown in its books of account - the AO could not have invoked the provisions of section 69B to fasten the addition on the assessee based on doubts/ conjectures and surmises - there was no material or evidence before the AO to conclude that the assessee had paid a consideration over and above the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed – thus, the amount shown as the value of the property in the registered sale deed has been taken as correct, unless the contrary is proved by credible evidence - no opportunity of being heard as required by law has been given by the AO before invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
|