TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh document or material seized which made him suspect the valuation of the property which ultimately led him to send queries to the assessee’s banker and also refer the matter to the DVO. No infirmity with the ITAT order which essentially held that the valuation by the banker, who provided credit could well be different from the valuation report for the transaction given that the assessee had purchased the property long ago. In other words, the absence of any material seized during the search proceeding could not have justified afresh examination of the valuation issue. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 174/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the DVO s valuation but concluded that since the property was shown as collateral by the assessee for the purposes of bank credit, and that in that transaction it was valued at ₹ 4 crores, upon an estimated increase of 10% per annum, the market value was ₹ 5,09,20,000/- and the realisable value was ₹ 4 crores. 4. The CIT(A) after re-appreciating the entire circumstances and also after considering the relevant case law was of the opinion that the AO was not justified in calculating the considerations on a notional basis as he did. In so holding the CIT(A) relied upon the decision in CIT vs N. Swamy 241 ITR 363 and other judgments. Findings of the CIT(A) are based upon a comparison of the contemporaneous tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same consideration of the appellant is better than the other sale instances cited by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. The appellant s arguments regarding the comparable sale instance taken in valuation report is acceptable and therefore there is no case for making any addition to income as unaccounted receipt of cash on account of higher sale consideration than the registered sale price by the appellant during the year. Lastly it is also relevant to note that a valuation made u/s 142A is only for the purposes of estimating cost of investment u/s 69/69B of the Act and therefore the scope of this section cannot be extended for determining the sale consideration of an asset. In view of all the above discussion in total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
