Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sri. S.S. Jyothi Prakash, S/O. Sri. S. Shivanna, Versus The Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Shimoga Range,

2016 (6) TMI 649 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Additions u/s 69 - Valuation made by the District Registrar/Appellate Authority - Held that:- Law is well settled that unless and until there is some other evidence to indicate that extra consideration had flowed in the transaction of purchase of property, the report of DVO cannot form basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. Since in the said case there was no evidence other than the report of DVO, it could not be relied upon for making addition. The question was decided in favour of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty may be on the basis of the valuation of the valuer of the stamp Act authority but same ipso facto cannot be said to be a valid ground to initiate the proceedings under Section 69 of the Act or to invoke power under Section 69 of the Act on the premise that additional consideration was paid or received. Further, if such could not be the basis, subsequent valuation report would also not a ground. In the absence of any independent material, the report of the valuer could not be the basis for m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

question of law:- Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the valuation made by the District Registrar/Appellate Authority is more effective and realistic without assigning any reasons is perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable? 2. In order to appreciate the controversy and then to address the question, we need to refer certain factual aspects. 3. The appellant is an individual mainly engaged in the transport business and running proprietary concern on the name and style of Shri. Shivalinga Tran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt in a residential house at Shimoga. The addition was made with regard to purchase of residential house for a consideration of ₹ 66,56,142/- which included the stamp duty payment. The value of the property by the Assessing Officer was taken at ₹ 90,51,000/- as against actual consideration reflected in the sale deed at ₹ 60,07,377/-. It appears that after document was presented for registration, the objection was raised by the stamp department for the deficit stamp duty. As per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 68 of the Act and the total income was determined at ₹ 92,16,520/-. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the said assessment, filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Hubli. In the said appeal, CIT (Appeals) confirmed the additions towards cash credit and with regard to addition made under Section 69 of the Act, he gave partial relief of ₹ 6,09,119/-. 5. The matter was further carried by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2010 upheld the addi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ermined the value of the land at ₹ 79,61,525/- and of the building at ₹ 21,60,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the assessing authority to re-compute the capital gain on the basis of the valuation decided by the District Registrar, Shimoga in the proceedings dated 18.05.2006. Under such circumstances, the appellant/assessee has preferred the present appeal. 6. We have heard Sri. S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and Sri. K.V. Aravind learned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e may record that the Assessing Officer after considering the matter has concluded as under:- The facts of the cases relied upon by the assessee in this letter are not similar to the facts of present case. Moreover, the Valuation Officer has given the basis of estimating the cost of land in that area and the cost of building after allowing depreciation. Hence, it is not guess work or estimate as relied upon by the assessee. It is based on the rate of the property sold during the relevant time in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8/- (Rs.1,18,25,600/- ₹ 66,56,142/-). The amount of ₹ 51,69,458/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the said aspect observed at para 8.2 as under:- 8.2 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and judicial decisions relied upon and the material facts emanating from the order of the AO and the remand report on this issue. In this case a remand report was called for from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also stated that property is located in the heart of the city and one of the land mark owned by one of the family members of re- known actress namely Mrs.Mumtaz. The AO in the course of remand proceedings provided the appellant an opportunity to explain the discrepancy in the value shown by the DVO, if any. But, as per the AO the appellant could not point out any infirmity or defect in the valuation report of the DVO. Since, the value of the land has been determined on the basis of instances of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appears that the deficiencies pointed out by the appellant in the valuation of the DVO as regards the valuation of building appears to be genuine therefore this sum of ₹ 6,09,119/- attributable to excessive valuation is required to be reduced from total valuation of the building of ₹ 20,26,793/. As a result the appellant gets a relief of ₹ 6,09,119/- out of the total valuation of the property determined at ₹ 1,18,25,600/-. In the result, the valuation report of the DVO is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the building. The assessees s registered valuer has valued the building at ₹ 18,53,113/- and that of the land at ₹ 51,40,964/-, total of ₹ 69,94,000/-. The valuation of the property was also considered by the District Registrar/the appellate authority. When the matter of under valuation of the property was initiated against the assessee, the District Registrar/the appellate authority has determined the value of the land at ₹ 79,61,525/- and that of the building at ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 69 of the Income Tax Act, the initial burden would be upon the revenue to prove that unexplained investment has been made by the assessee. It is only after the initial burden is discharged by the revenue, the assessee may be required to rebut the same. In the present case, as per the learned counsel for the assessee, there was no independent material or primary evidence to show unexplained income. In his submission, merely because the assessee opted for additional stamp duty on the basis of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the registered sale deed. As per him, all the lower authorities including the Tribunal have lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and hence the order for addition may be quashed. 12. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue contended that valuation made by the authority under the Stamp Act which is so accepted by the assessee for the purpose of payment of stamp duty can be considered as a basis for invoking Section 69 of the Act. In his submission, there is indirect admission on the pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he same, the District Registrar, for the purpose of stamp duty, had valued land at ₹ 79,61,525/- and for the building ₹ 21,60,000/-. Under these circumstances, as per the learned counsel for the revenue if the Tribunal has exercised the discretion and has gone by the valuation made by the District Registrar for the purpose of said difference which is so accepted by the assessee, the difference in the said valuation and the consideration recorded in the sale deed can be said as unexpl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

missioner of Income Tax vs Puneet Sabharwal reported in (2011) 338 ITR 485, had an occasion to examine the question as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the District Valuation Officer, the Revenue had to prove that the assessee had in fact received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the sale in the sale deed. While answering the said question at para Nos.8 and 9, it was observed thus:- 8. As far as question No.2 is con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7 (SC), the aforesaid proposition of law is reiterated time and again. For our benefit, we may refer to the latest judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi), wherein this court had held that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. It was also held that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preme Court in K.P. Varghese (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj). 14. The aforesaid shows that the primary burden to prove the understatement or concealment of the income by way of unexplained investment is on the revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged, it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. Further, it was also held that if .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Income Tax vs Sadhna Gupta reported in (2013) 352 ITR 0595, wherein once again similar question came up for consideration to examine as to whether the Tribunal committed an error in not relying upon the District Valuation Officer s Report under Section 142A and thereby deleting addition of the income based on the said report. The High Court of Delhi after considering the aforesaid question, observed at para Nos. 4 and 5 as under:- 4. Only point to be considered is whether the valuatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal: (2011) 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared val .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hen the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this Court in the same vein. One such cse being the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal: (ITANo.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi: (2009) 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. In the present case there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. In these circumstances, the question which has been framed is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed. 16. The aforesaid shows that it was observed that the law is well settled that unless and until there is some other evidence to indicate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version