TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities below, it is observed that the assessee has not filed a copy of the registered sale deed in his favour either before the authorities below or before us. AO called a DVO report on compelling circumstances and at the same time did not confront the same to the assessee as per provisions of Section 142A(3), thus the impugned order is cryptic and not well-reasoned. Therefore, it is appropriate to restore the issue to the file of AO with a direction to decide the issue de novo following the provisions of Section 142A, inter alia provisions of Section 56(2) - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - I.T.A.No.613/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2012 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JJ. Appellant by: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Ranjan Chopra PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XV, New Delhi for AY 2006-07 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brief the Act). 2. The only ground in this appeal reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DVO for valuation on the ground that there was under-statement of investment in the property. The DVO had valued the property at Rs 25,89,956/- and accordingly, the AO has made the addition of Rs. 15,89,956/- (Rs 25,89,956/- (-) Rs 10,00,000/-) as unexplained investments. 2. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer and it is submitted that the Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition as the assessee had purchased the property for Rs. 10,00,000/- and reflected the same in the sale deed also. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of the DVO report without any corroborative evidence of any unexplained investment. It is also submitted that the DVO has made the valuation of the property by comparing the same with other properties which are not of the same quality or of the same locality. It is submitted that the AO has referred the valuation of the property to the DVO without any valid reasons or without any valid materials in his possession against the assessee and also without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee also relied on various case laws in support of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the DVO and wrongly held that he has not found any substantial material or corroborating evidence to show that the assessee has made any unexplained investment in the purchase of property in Darya Ganj. The DR submitted that when the assessee is not cooperating with the assessment proceedings and not replying to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer had no option but to call a valuation report from the DVO and this was a sufficient cause but the same was not considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 7. The assessee s representative submitted that the Assessing Officer conducted the assessment in an arbitrary manner and he called the report of DVO without any reasonable basis. The AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer did not afford an opportunity to the assessee to confront the report of the DVO and he made the addition violating all the accepted principles of natural justice. The AR submitted that the wrong action of the Assessing Officer was rightly corrected by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits. 8. After careful consideration of the above submissions, we observe that the AR has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,000/-made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property being Flat No. 303, Mayurdhawaj Apartment, Patpar Ganj, Delhi. As against Rs.8,00,000/- shown as consideration in the purchase deed on account of purchase of flat No. S-303, Mayurdhawaj Apartments, Patpar Ganj, Delhi from one Mr. Pramod Gupta, the AO had taken the consideration amount at Rs.20,00,000/- on the basis of valuation report of the Valuation Officer obtained u/s 142A of the Act. The AO, therefore, made the addition of difference of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the property. The AO further stated that the assessee did not cooperate with the Valuation Officer in spite of 3 opportunities given by him. However, on appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition by observing that the AO has failed to bring any cogent material of under valuation of the property so as to call for any addition on that account. 9. The Ld. DR merely relied upon the AO s order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon his submissions made before the AO as well as before the CIT (A). 10. Both the parties were heard and material on record was perused. It is a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
