TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue on some legal or justified basis - In the absence of the same, the reference to the DVO cannot be upheld – there was no substance in the appeal – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 74 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-7-2012 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. G.S. SANDHAWALIA., JJ . For the Appellant: Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- 1. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), against the order dated June 13, 2011, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in ITSA No. 2 (ASR)/2011 (arising out of I. T. A. Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not recorded investments, by way of deeming of income ; and also not appreciating that the plain interpretation of section 142A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, also does not envisage any such essential and obligatory requirement of invocation of the provisions of section 145 of the Act so that the Assessing Officer can lean on the shoulders of the DVO for an expert estimation of a property on which he has genuine and reasonable reasons to believe that the investment in the property has not been fully disclosed in the books of the assessee and has thus an element of undisclosed income having been ploughed into it, which have to be assessed under the deeming provisions of section 69 or section 69B of the Act ?" 3. Put shortly, the facts fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee also offered its comments on the DVO's report and raised the objections against the same. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated December 24, 2009 (annexure A-1), added Rs. 55,10,924 being the difference determined by the DVO in respect of M/s, Chohan Resorts and the cost declared by the assessee under section 69B of the Act and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 55,12,930. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short "the CIT(A)"). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide order dated July 2, 2010 (annexure A-2) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein the hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (page 514 of 328 ITR) : 4. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided the matter rightly in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the DVO without the books of account being rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived . 9.3 From the above judgment, it is clear that the hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that without the books of account being rejected, referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
