TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h situation. However, it is well settled Law that substantive provisions could not be applied retrospectively. There is no other material brought on record to justify the conclusion that assessee-company made unaccounted investment in purchase of the property. No evidence on record to justify unaccounted payment for purchase of the property, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. A.O. did not gather any evidence to establish that payments were made by the assessee-company outside the books of account. - Decided against revenue. - ITA.No.294 And 295/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. And Shri O.P. Kant, A.M. For the Assessee : Shri Ashvini Kumar, Advocates For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le consideration has been mentioned at ₹ 1,68,64,103/- whereas the market value as per the Registering Authority for the said plot is of ₹ 10,55,80,000/- on which stamp duty has been paid. Similarly in the A.Y. 2012-13, sale deed was found during the course of search, which revealed that assessee-company has purchased a property i.e., Plot No.4, Sector-4, Greater Noida from M/s. Sir, Biotech India Ltd., vide sale deed dated 9th May 2011. It was noticed that as per the sale deed, the sale consideration has been mentioned at ₹ 8,07,15,000/-, whereas as per the market value as per the Registering Authority for the said plot is of ₹ 32,42,50,000/- on which stamp duty has also been paid. The assessee-company was reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssesseecompany. The assessee-company relied upon several decisions in support of the contention. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee-company and deleted the addition. His findings in appellate order in para 5.3 of the order is reproduced as under. 5.3. Decision : I have considered the assessment order, written submission and the argument of Ld.AR. The sole basis of addition is that the market value of the properly No. 7, BZP Area, Greater Noida purchased by the appellant as per registration authority was ₹ 8,94,22.900/- where as consideration paid by the appellant was only ₹ 1,30,00,000/-. The Ld. assessing officer has treated the balance as under valuation of the property. There is no provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years are allowed. 3. Learned DR relied upon the order of the A.O. 4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied upon the following decisions. 4.1. Order of ITAT, Delhi-C Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Fitwell Logic System (P.) Ltd., reported in (2010) 1 ITR (T) 286 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Held that, there was no evidence or material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show and establish that the assessee had made actual investment to the extent of ₹ 1,34,79,780 being valuation for the purpose of stamp duty as against ₹ 1,25,00,000 shown in the sale deed. As such the addition was to be deleted. 4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation authorities as undisclosed investments under sections 69 and 69B - Held, yes. 4.4. Judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi-1, Delhi, vs. Agile Properties (P.) Ltd., (2014) 225 Taxman 107 (Del.) (HC) in which it was held as under : In absence of any positive evidence on record, addition cannot be made on account of undisclosed investment in property merely placing reliance upon report to DVO. 4.5. Judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del.) (HC) in which it was held as under : In order to make addition under section 69B, opinion of DVO per se is not sufficient and other corroborated evidence is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
