Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1600 - HC - Income TaxRejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) - assessee has failed to maintain quantitative and qualitative stock registers and vouch the expenses incurred by it and ‘on money’ received by it has not been disclosed - Held that:- Addition has been made merely on the basis of the DVO’s report and considering that the assessee has not fully explained the investment and/or there is unexplained expenditure. No document or evidence have been brought on record to establish that the assessee has paid any amount over and above the amount entered in the books of account to purchase the said land presently known as Unique Destination. It is a fact that onus is on the department for making any addition u/s 69, Section 69B or Section 69C of the Act that there is understatement of investment or unexplained expenditure/investment. Only when such burden is discharged by the revenue, the onus shift on the assessee to prove that there is no unexplained expenditure/investment. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Naveen Gera [2010 (8) TMI 194 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and case of CIT Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010 (8) TMI 217 - DELHI HIGH COURT] have held that in absence of any incriminating material, the actual consideration asper agreement has to be accepted and no addition can be made in the case of buyer because of difference between stamp duty valuation of the property and actual consideration as per the agreement. Primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged, it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the Valuation Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee
|