TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sabharwal (2010 (12) TMI 846 - Delhi High Court ) In the facts of the present case it is plain that the seized document, which raised the suspicion of the Revenue about a possible undisclosed investment made by the Assessees, did not form the basis for the additions. The statement made by the DR before the ITAT, which was accepted by the ITAT, makes it clear that the addition was sought to be sustained only on the basis of the report of the DVO. Thus the Court finds that the additions made in the hands of the Assessees, are in the facts and circumstances of the case, unsustainable in law. The question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessees and against the Revenue. - ITA 144/2003, ITA 145/2003, ITA 146/2003 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Section 131 of the Act for finding out the correct area of the farm and also for finding out the extent of the Assessees investment in the said farm. 4. The Department Valuation Officer ( DVO ) submitted a report estimating the value of the property at ₹ 14,36, 300 per acre for 1.63 acres purchased on 29th March 1994 and at ₹ 13,03,900 per acre for 3.1 acres of land purchased on 28th February 1994. The AO then adopted the report of the DVO and applying Section 69B of the Act held that a total amount of ₹ 66,47,800 was spent by the three co-owners in acquiring the farm of which only ₹ 8,40,000 was recorded in the books of accounts. The unrecorded amount of ₹ 58,07,000 was added, one-third each, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2nd May 2003, the Court framed the following question of law for determination: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were attracted in the case and in sustaining of addition and ₹ 19,35,667/-, being the differential amount of unexplained investment? 8. This Court has heard the submissions of Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessees and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue. 9. As regards the probative value of the report of a DVO, the settled legal position appears to be that in the absence of there being material with the AO to come to a conclusion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as without jurisdiction. He submitted that although following the said decision, Section 142A of the Act was inserted with retrospective effect from 15th November 1972, on the date on which the commission was issued in the present case to the DVO under Section 131 of the Act there was no power in the AO to do so. Although, there appears to be merit in the above submission, for the purposes of the present case the Court need not examine whether the report of the DVO at all could have been called for since it has been already held that the report of the DVO could not have formed the sole basis for sustaining the additions in the hands of the Assessees under Section 69B of the Act. 12. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
