TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring to the report of valuation officer in the absence of any incriminating documents found in the course of a search no addition could be made by treating investment as undisclosed on the basis of any DYC’s report - thus CIT(A) in the present case was not justified in estimating the value of the investments in the properties contrary to the amount mentioned in the conveyance deeds. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to accept the value of the properties as declared in sale deeds - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 610/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv JUDGEMENT Per : R.V. Easwar, J : This is an appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act , for short) and the following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised for our consideration. A. Whether the ITAT was correct in the eyes of law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,72,86,412/- made by the assessing officer on account of the unexplained investment in the immoveable properties? B. Whether I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no evidence to show that it had in fact paid anything more than the price declared by it for the properties, that the conclusion of the assessing officer to the contrary was based purely on surmises and conjectures and not on any cogent material, that even the search did not yield any material or evidence to show any undisclosed investment by the assessee. It was argued that at any rate the value based on rent capitalization method as prescribed in the Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act was only a notional figure of fair market value of the property which was different from the price paid for the property and that in these circumstances the addition made by the Assessing Officer based upon the provisions of Section 69B of the Act was arbitrary and had absolutely no basis. It was also submitted on the basis of certain specific instances that even on comparing the market rates for the properties, there was no understatement of the consideration. 4. The CIT(Appeals) examined the contentions of the assessee in detail and held that so far as the flat Nos 3 and 9, Palm Court are concerned, the facts are substantially similar to the facts of the case of P C Jain (HUF), Smt. Lata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in those cases the matter had already reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal had deleted the entire addition made under Section 69B on the ground that there was no evidence to show any understatement or suppression of the sale consideration/purchase consideration and therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of the estimated market value of the properties. The Tribunal held as follows : 21. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the instant appeals the AO has estimated the value of investments in the impugned properties by applying provisions of Schedule 3 of Wealth-tax Act. The ld. CIT(A), however, following his decision in the case of Shri Dinesh Jain and in the case of Smt. Lata Jain had estimated the value of the property. The AO had not brought on record any material to suggest that the value shown in the conveyance deeds was lower than the amount passed on by the assessee to the sellers. ITAT, Delhi Bench B in the case of Shri Dinesh Jain and Smt. Lata Jain in consolidated order dated 30th September, 2009 in ITA No.3422 (Del) of 2008 etc. has deleted the similar additions by observing, as under :- 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of valuation officer in the absence of aiiy(sic) incriminating documents found in the course of a search no addition could be made by treating investment as undisclosed on the basis of any DYC s report. The decision in CIT Vs. Mar Jam 287 ITR 285 is also to the same effect. In CIT Vs. Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. 151 ITR 79 (SC), their Lordships have once again reiterated that onus whether the assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer, rested on the Revenue and in the absence of that burden having been being discharged, it would be legally impressible to make any inferences against the assessee. 22. Since the issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Shri Dinesh Jain (supra) and the facts of the case are identical to the facts of Shri Dinesh Jain, respectfully following the precedent, it is held that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in estimating the value of the investments in the properties contrary to the amount mentioned in the conveyance deeds. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to accept the value of the properties as declared in sale deeds. 9. It is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
