Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1367 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investment u/s 69B - assessee has paid amount more than the amount shown as apparent consideration in the registered sale deed - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO had a doubt on the basis of prevailing market rate in the area which was within the range of ₹ 1,500/- to ₹ 2,000/- per square feet and that the cost of construction was ₹ 500/- per square feet, that the consideration stated in the registered sale deed was not the real consideration paid for acquiring the property by the assessee. We find that the AO has thereafter not brought any material on record by making further inquiries to show that the assessee actually paid any amount over and above the amount shown in registered sale deed for the acquisition of the property. We find in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the onus lies on the Department to bring material on record to show that the assessee has actually paid any amount more than the amount shown as apparent consideration in the registered sale deed. In absence of any such material brought on record, the Department is not empowered to treat any other amount as actual consideration paid by the assessee for acquiring the property and make addition on that basis. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and delete the addition Disallowance at the rate of 20% out of synthetic diamond powder expenses - HELD THAT:- Entire purchase of synthetic powder was supported by bills and vouchers and no specific defect therein was brought on record by the Revenue. However, we do not agree with the submissions of the Ld. AR that stock of power lying with the job workers could not be taken into consideration simply because such stock was not taken into consideration in the past in case of the assessee. We agree that the value of such stock at the rate of 20% of the entire purchase during the year was without any basis and excessive. We find that the details of synthetic powder which was lying with the workers could no be furnished by the assessee before us also - it shall meet the ends of justice to estimate such stock at the rate of 10% of the entire purchases made during the year. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to ₹ 9,43,052/- and delete the disallowance of ₹ 9,43,051/-. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|