TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration shown. Thus respectfully following the decision in case of DCIT vs. Shri Virjibhai Kalyanbhai & Smt. Pinkyben B. Chokhawala vs.ITO (2012 (10) TMI 791 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) in absence of any evidence of extra money appeal of the assessee allowed. Rectification application allowed by CIT(A) - CIT(A)-V, Surat had confirmed the addition of Rs.400/- per sq.mtr. against the addition of Rs.800/- per sq.mtr. by the A.O - Held that:- CIT(A) was wrong as there is no apparent mistake in the order of the CIT(A) order dated 30.11.2009. The issue is debatable and the Revenue as well as assessee had filed the appeal before the ITAT and doctrine of merger is applied in assessee's case filed on 22.01.2010 and Revenue's appeal filed on 23.02.2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 69B when no evidence regarding on-money payment was made for purchase of plot. Grounds of ITA No.613/Ahd/2010 (Revenue's appeal) "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO at Rs.14,44,800/- u/s. 69B despite the fact that all evidences collected by the AO proved unaccounted investment by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. at Rs.14,44,800/- u/s. 69B despite himself being convinced about the fact of unaccounted investment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the principles of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd re adjudicate the issue. Under Section 154 of the I. T. Act such powers have been conferred to Hon'ble ITAT and higher Appellate Authorities only not to CIT(A)." 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in two firms, namely, M/s. Nandini Silk Mills and M/s. Nagindas Atmaram and earns her share of profit. The assessee has purchased land of 3612 sq. mtrs. At Sachin Udyognagar Sahkari Mandli Ltd. and land was purchased by deed of assignment on 21.03.2006 for an amount of Rs.2,35,000/-. Per Sq. Mtr. Of purchase rate of the land was Rs.65/-. The land is situated in the fast growing industrial area of the Surat and located with in the Municipal limits of Surat City. Ld. A.O. observed that getting the plot of land of 3612 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as increased to only 65/sq.mtr. The A.O. found this explanation beyond imagination of any common man and common sense. The new jantry prices indicate the cost of the industrial land per sq.mtr. as Rs.5000/- sq.mtr. to Rs.6000/- sq. mtr. In this particular area where assessee has purchased land. This clearly shows that even though market rate was rising day-by-day Government has not revised the rates since long. That is the main reason for this leap of stamp duty value from Rs.400/sq.mtr. to Rs.5000/sq.mtr. Hence the jantry price of the land as per stamp duty authorities is not the correct reflection of the fair market value and the market value is much more than what was shown by assessee in his books of accounts. The ld. A.O. gave show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The assessee also file the written reply vide letter dated 23.06.2012, 27.08.2012 06.09.2012 and argued that no addition in the hands of assessee can be made by the A.O. u/s. 50C of the IT Act as well as u/s.69B of the IT Act. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below and also relied in case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs. CIT, 226 ITR344 (Rajasthan High Court), wherein the addition on the basis of valuation report as well as comparable case have been held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, justified, thus, he prayed for confirming the addition. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is well settled law that no addition u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sq.mtr. by the A.O., vide order dated 30.11.2009. The assessee filed rectification application before the CIT(A) against this order and ld. CIT(A) had allowed the rectification application and held as under: "5. Considering the above submissions and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 35 (II) ITCL 128 (Ahd 'B' - Trib) I am of the view that no addition of undisclosed investment can be made by invoking the provision of section 69B of the I.T. Act unless and until there is evidence on record to show that the consideration over and above, what has been recorded in the sale deed, has been made by the assessee. In this case there is no such evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
