9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng business Income from proprietorship concern-s namely, M/s Mittal Ceramics and Partnership Firms, M/s Industrial & Building Glass Industries and M/s Swastik Coal Suppliers. A search action u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act, was conducted on 17.10.2012 in the case of the assessee and his other family members. In pursuance to the action u/s 132(1),the case of the assessee was centralized vide order of the Ld CIT-II, Agra, dated 21.03.2013. Notices were issued and the assessments were completed under section 153A of the Act, by making identical additions on the basis of the report of the Departmental Veluer ("the DVO" in short), in respect of the same property from A.Y 2008-2009 to A.Y 2012-2013. 3.1 The assessee, alongwith his other family members, had purchased a residential house bearing House No.55 at Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad, vide purchase deed dated 16.09.2007, in the previous Year 2007-08, relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-2009, for a total consideration of Rs. 62,32,500/-, including expenses for Registration. The AO had adopted the assessee's share in the property at 25% instead of 20% as shown by the assessee. It is noted by the lower authorities that the assessee had furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property in itself is a documentary evidence and the A.O. has rightly taken it into cognizance for the assessing its value and consequently the correct total income of appellant. Therefore, I do not find force the contention of appellant given in his written submission. The decision and material facts of the cases relied upon the appellant are distinguishable on facts. Thus, the addition made by Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed for all the assessment years from AY 2008-09 to AY 2013-14." 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in compliance, to the show cause notice dated 16.03.2015, the assessee objected to the proposed addition, vide written submission dated 20.03.2015 with the support of purchase deeds of the said house by the assessee and the immediate seller (APB 17-60);that the assessee had filed detailed written reply before Ld. CIT(A),at the stage of 1st appellate proceedings(APB 63-71); that the addition was made solely on the basis of the report of the DVO, as the assessee has purchased a residential house bearing No. 49 & 50 at Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad, fully constructed, without any evidence on records that after purchase, any amount of investment, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the ITAT was carried in appeal by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, where also vide order Dated 23.01.2013 reported as 'CIT Vs Abhinav Kumar Mittal' (2013) 30 taxmann.com 357 (Delhi), approved that in the absence of any material found during the course of search, no addition can be made simply on the basis of valuation Report,(APB- 84-85). The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "Section 69, read with sections 142A and 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 Unexplained investments Immovable properties Assessment year 200607 Assessing Officer as a result of search conducted under section 132 upon a company and its directors issued on assessee a notice under section 153C He, in course of assessment proceedings, considered valuation of three properties, which had been purchased by assessee in relevant year, and referred question of valuation of properties to DVO On receipt of valuation report, Assessing Officer took into account difference in values as declared by assessee and as determined by DVO and added same to income of assessee as unexplained investments under section 69 Appellate authorities deleted impugned addition made by Assessing Officer No material was foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, nevertheless it is an estimation and without there being anything more, cannot form basis for addition under section 69B - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, in absence of any other material on record, impugned addition was correctly deleted - Held, yes [Para 9] [In favour of assessee]" 7. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the impugned order. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused the material on record. The AO alleged that the asessee had submitted registered deed of the property, but he did not furnish the required bills, vouchers and relevant document, i.e., valuation report and, therefore, the AO referred the property in question to the Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 142A to ascertain the alleged unexplained investment of the assessee in the said property. Thus, the addition in dispute on account of alleged unexplained investment in the aforesaid property was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO,obtained by way of reference u/s 142A of the Act. 9. It is not disputed that a readymade building was purchased by the assessee; that no evidence was found during the course of search action conducted at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
