TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the learned AO making an addition of ₹ 1,43,26,000 as undisclosed investment in property purchased by referring to DVO without any material to substantiate more consideration has passed between the parties. 2 The learned CIT [A] has erred in ignoring the judgments of the Courts including jurisdictional High Court holding that addition for undisclosed investment in property purchased cannot be made purely on the basis of DVO report. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the valuation report on the basis of Circle rates and the deficiencies pointed out in the valuation report of the DVO. 4 That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 5 That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds at the time of heavy of appeal. 2. In Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the assessee has contended the issue of addition of ₹ 1,43,26,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer (in short ld. AO ) against undisclosed investment in property purchased, based on the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer (in short DVO ). The ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the assessee s appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. D. Kohli and Associates incorporating comments on the report of the DVO and urged that the valuation made by the DVO was suffering from many deficiencies and DVO did not take into account the adverse facts and circumstances of the property of the assessee as compared to the comparable case of sale transaction taken by the DVO. In view of the submission of the assessee, again a remand report was called for from the ld. AO calling for his comment. The ld. AO forwarded the submission of the assessee to the DVO, who in turn gave his comments on the various objections raised by M/s. K.D. Kohli and Associates and forwarded a detailed report to the ld AO. The ld AO then sent his remand report to the ld CIT(A). Both the remand reports were provided to the assessee for his comments. In his submission before the ld CIT(A), the assessee also raised his legal objections by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, remand reports of the AO and rejoinder thereon of the assessee and after analyzing the judgments quoted by the assessee, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further in the case of CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46, the jurisdictional High Court has decided as under:- . It has noted that the Department has failed to collect any information or material to show that any consideration above and beyond the stated sale consideration had changed hands. It applied the dictum in KP Varghese Vs. ITO, 131, IT597 (SC) which lays the burden to establish the factum of the assessee having received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as a consideration on the Revenue. The ITAT has opined that the investments shown by the assessee stand fully corroborated by documentary evidence. We find no error in the approach of the ITAT. 9. The issue of reference to DVO u/s 142A of the Act and addition made u/s 69B of the Act that basis also came up before the ITAT Delhi A Bench in the case of ACIT, CC-5, Delhi Vs. Sh. Arvind Khanna in ITA No.1117/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, wherein the Tribunal after considering the arguments of both parties on this issue held as under:- 3. Ld DR supported the assessment order. It is also submitted by her that as per the provisions of Section I42A inserted by the Finance No.2 Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. that any document or adverse material was found by him suggesting any extra payment by the assessee over and above the declared amount of consideration for purchase of shares in question. As per the A.O., the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer : i.e. .DVO to determine the correct value of the property which was the only known asset of the company TDPL Hence, it is apparent that there was no adverse material available on record to establish/ suggest any extra payment by the assessee to acquire these shares. The facts of the present case are identical to the to the facts in the case of DCIT Vs Shri Vinod Singhal (supra). In that case also, the assessee purchased a property for consideration of ₹ 9.50 Iacs which was valued by the A0 at ₹ 35.20 lacs on the basis of valuation report given by the DVO and made addition of this difference amount. Such addition was not found sustainable by the tribunal in that case because there was no adverse material available on record to establish/suggests that the assessee had made expenditure more than what was declared and disclosed by him as a consideration to purchase the said asset. Hence, by respectfully following t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
