TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration for which the property was actually acquired. If there is any difference in the shares in consideration borne by the four brothers, it is a matter of their inter se understanding. Doubts as to the real value cannot arise from such fact alone. The shop in Bhagirath Place is the property of the assessee. It has been found, as a fact, by the CIT(Appeals) that the shop had remained vacant throughout the AY. No evidence was gathered by the AO to refute the claim of the assessee to such effect or to show that rent over and above what was declared was realized. The conclusion of the CIT(Appeals) to the contrary was affirmed by ITAT in the order dated 08.08.2014. Both the said authorities have also found, on factual inquiry, that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 13.08.2009. In the course of such proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO), inter alia, noted that property (admeasuring 2275.92 sq. yds.) no. 10/78, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi had been purchased from Mr. Munish Sachdeva and Mr. H.K. Sachdeva by registered sale deed executed on 19.04.2007 by the assessee jointly in equal shares with his three brothers for total consideration of ₹ 3.90 crores. It was noted that while two other brothers (Mr. K.K. Arora and Mr. R.P. Arora) had paid ₹ 1.05 crores each, the assessee and his other brother had paid ₹ 90 lakhs each for their respective shares. The AO suspected it to be a case of under-valuation and, thus, referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsuccessfully. 7. The Revenue urges the following as substantial questions of law:- i. Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT and passing the order without considering the facts of case and without taking into account the valuation report relied upon by the A.O. u/s 142A of the I.T. Act as an expert opinion and deleted the addition of ₹ 71,93,200/- made u/s 69B of the I.T. Act? ii. Whether the ITAT, without appreciating the provisions of Sec. 23(4) (b) of the I.T. act, 1961, was justified in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 79,800/- on account of Fair Rental Value stating that the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the additions on account of difference in market pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over to the seller. In these circumstances, it was not fair in the first place to refer the said property for estimation of its market value by DVO. 9. The assessment of the value by DVO cannot hold primacy over the consideration for which the property was actually acquired. If there is any difference in the shares in consideration borne by the four brothers, it is a matter of their inter se understanding. Doubts as to the real value cannot arise from such fact alone. 10. The shop in Bhagirath Place is the property of the assessee. It has been found, as a fact, by the CIT(Appeals) that the shop had remained vacant throughout the AY. No evidence was gathered by the AO to refute the claim of the assessee to such effect or to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
