TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n done in that case. - Decided in favor of assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 3-12-2010 - SIKRI A. K., SURESH KAIT JJ. JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri J.- 1. This appeal was admitted on the following two questions of law : "1. Whether the Assessing Officer was right in referring the question of fair market value of the property sold by the assessee to the District Valuation Officer in terms of section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') ? alternatively, was the Assessing Officer in terms of section 48 read with section 45(5) of the Act bound to accept the value stated in the registered sale deed ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the District Valuation Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order by the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12.54 lakhs. The assessee, not being satisfied with the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). After considering the matter at length, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition on the ground that apart from the said report of the District Valuation Officer, there was no evidence on record that some extra consideration was paid by the assessee for acquiring the property over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in support of this conclusion relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). He was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illed. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed." 6. Coming with the statement of facts narrated above, further we proceed to answer the questions on which the appeal was admitted. 7. Coming to the first question, it does not arise for consideration. As per the question formulated, the property was sold by the assessee whereas, in the instant case, the properties in question were purchased by the assessee and were not sold by him. Even if we treat the same as typographical mistake, we are of the view that it would not be necessary to decide this question in view of the answer that we propose to give to question No. 2. 8. As far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
