TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any rate variation resulting in a profit and addition has been made purely on the estimate basis. In absence of any material or evidence or documents to establish that the assessee has made investment and amount expended on making such investments or acquiring land exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of accounts, which has been properly audited and accepted by the department. - Decided against revenue - ITA 778/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr S. Krishnan and Mr Gaurav Goel, Advocates ORDER 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 28th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the land as a result of which no profit or gain had arisen. 6. In the assessment order dated 26th December 2008, the AO referred to the details of purchases of land made by a group company of the Assessee, viz. Golden View Builders Pvt. Ltd., wherein the average rate per acre was higher in Ullawas village (Rs. 2,44,68,000/- per acre) as compared to Behrampur village (Rs. 1,68,78,000/- per acre). The differential amount, according to the AO, had been withheld by the Assessee and accordingly the aforementioned addition was made by invoking Section 69B of the Act. 7. The Assessee then went in appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] who by the order dated 26th June 2009 held as under: (h) Except relying on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of actual investment as per books, no addition under Section 69B could have been made. In CIT Vs Lalit Bhasin 147 Taxman 619 (Del), when the purchase was not verified from the stock exchange or from the seller, it was held that addition without evidence in support of that, would be an addition on the basis of conjecture and nothing else. In Shankarlal Nebhulal (HUF) Vs DCIT (2004) 2 SOT 671 (Ahd), it was held that there could be no addition u/s 69B, if there is no evidence of payment of on-money for purchase of immovable property. In the case under appeal, no evidence being on record or substantiate a view that the appellant has paid more than what was recorded in the books, the AO could not have invoked the provisions of section 69B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arket rates and the rate determined by the stamp valuation authorities at the two locations is given more so when evidences are not on record to indicate that the appellant paid more as against the documented price as part of the exchange. Per reasoning above, I hold that, there being no surplus in value of land transferred to the appellant, and there being no basis or evidences to invoke the provisions of section 69B, the impugned addition is without merits. The grounds answered on merits, the appellants arguments that the additions have been made without affording opportunity to rebut and that the additions have been made without a show cause either for invoking the provisions of section 69B or for relying on comparable transactions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
