TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of any corroborative material to point out under-valuation of the property in question. Therefore, we accept the grievance of the assessee as justified. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the ld CIT(A) are reversed and the additions are hereby deleted, for all the Assessment Years, i.e., from A.Y. 2007-08 to 2013-14. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 47 to 52/Agra/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2017 - Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member For The Appellant : Shri Anurag Sinha, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Inderjeet SinPgh, CIT DR ORDER PER DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM: These appeals by assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, [herein after referred to as the CIT(A) ], dated 05.12.2016, in respect of Assessment Years2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken up a single common issue in all the 6 assessment years under appeal, i.e., regarding confirmation of additions on the basis of the Departmental Valuer s report that after purchase on 07.09.2007 assessee carried out alteration and addition work thoroughly of very richer specification ,which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar wise Investment assumed Differences 2008-2009 10% ₹ 15,79,740/- 6,23,250/- 9,56,490/- 2009-2010 15% ₹ 23,69,610/- 9,34,875/- 4,34,735/- 2010-2011 15% ₹ 23,69,610/- 9,34,875/- 14,34,735/- 2011-2012 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- 2012-2013 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- 2013-2014 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- Total 100% ₹ 1,57,97,400 62,32,500/- 95,64,900/- 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer referring Section 153A of the Act, interalia, observing as under: 4.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and further thoroughly addition and alteration and internal work were constructed during A.Y 2007-08 to 2012-13 ; that the Report of the Valuation officer is not bona-fide, for the apparent reason that no evidence was available with the Valuation Officer to have come to the conclusion that after purchase during A.Y s 2007-08 to 2012-13, any alteration or internal work was got done by the assessee which is not recorded in the Accounts, or which remained unexplained; and that the DVO has mentioned in para 7.3 that Assessee purchased readymade building having built up area 343.63 M2 two storyed of very ordinary specifications. Then after purchase the assessee done additions and alteration works thoroughly and internal works (and a few works on second floor also) building of very richer specifications and of built up area approximately 66 M2 . The ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the DVO has no evidence in support of his claim in the Valuation Report that when the residential house, which was purchased by the assessee bears Ordinary Construction and after its purchase thorough addition and alteration work was done by the assessee, and even internal work of two stories an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified in deleting impugned addition made by Assessing Officer Held, yes [Para 6] 6.2 A similar view was reiterated by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nishi Mehra , reported as (2015) 56 taxman.com 89 (Del),emphasizing that no addition can be made only on the basis of DVO s Report in absence of any corroborative evidence. (APB, 86-89). The Hon ble Court deleted the addition, holding as under: Section 69B, read with section 158BA, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Undisclosed investment (Immovable properties assessment in search cases) Block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 Whether opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in absence of other corroborative evidence Held, no. Whether where due disclosure of acquisition of properties had been made in course of regular assessments by assessee and those valuations had been accepted by income tax authorities as well as wealth tax authorities, Assessing Officer could not tax said amounts merely based upon DVO's report in absence of any material pointing to undervaluation in block assessment proceedings Held, yes. 6.3 The Counsel also relied on the case of CIT-I Vs. Berry Plastics (p.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se deed; that no construction was carried out after the purchase of the property on 16.09.2007; and that no evidence that after the purchase of the property on 16.09.2007 either any investment was made by the assessee or investment is found recorded in its books of accounts, either during the course of search of the assessee s residence and business premises, or thereafter during the course of assessment proceedings or even in the DVO s enquiry proceedings. 9.1 In the case of CIT Vs Abhinav Kumar Mittal (2013) 30 taxmann.com 357 (Delhi)(Supra), it was held that ...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.The Appellate authorities deleted impugned addition made by Assessing Officer as no material was found in search and seizure operations to justify reference to DVO and the DVO's valuation was based on incomparable sales. Whether valuation arrived at by DVO was of no consequence Held, yes. Whether, therefore, appellate authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
