Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1154 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 based on the valuation report - CIT- A deleted the addition on ground that without pointing out any defects in the books of account, the Assessing Officer could not have made a reference to the DVO under section 142A - HELD THAT:- Obviously, ‘Sargam Cinema’ [2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER] is applicable to the case of the assessee and the amendment brought in concerning the provisions of section 142A of the I.T. Act have no adverse effect inasmuch as the amended section has expressly been made applicable w.e.f. 1.10.2014. To reiterate, undisputedly, the year under consideration is Assessment Year 2013-14, due to which fact, the amended provisions, in absence of express direction to the contrary, cannot be made applicable to the year under consideration. To make it further clear, it would be appropriate to add that the present provisions of section 142A(2) provide that the Assessing Officer may make reference to the Valuation Officer under subsection (1) of section 142A whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. Evidently, there was no analogous provision in the section prior to the amendment. In such facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in referring the matter to the DVO and adopting the valuation suggested by the DVO and making addition on the basis thereof. CIT(A) has correctly relied on ‘CIT vs. Shivakami Company Pvt. Ltd.’ [2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER] ‘ K.P. Varghese vs. CIT’ [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - The Hon’ble Supreme Court has long since settled the law that unless there is evidence of excess consideration having been paid in the transaction of immovable property, no higher price can be taken in the computation of income. Department has failed to show as to how the decisions in ‘Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT’ [2010 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] and ‘Sudarshan Silk Sarees vs. CIT’ [2008 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] sought to be relied on by the Department, stand violated. - Decided against revenue.
|