TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally paid any amount over and above the amount shown in registered sale deed for the acquisition of the property. We find in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO [ 1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the onus lies on the Department to bring material on record to show that the assessee has actually paid any amount more than the amount shown as apparent consideration in the registered sale deed. In absence of any such material brought on record, the Department is not empowered to treat any other amount as actual consideration paid by the assessee for acquiring the property and make addition on that basis. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and delete the addition Disallowance at the rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer making addition of ₹ 43,28,500/- as undisclosed investment u/s 69B of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and the material available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee purchased 4 halls having aggregate total area of 19,645 square feet in Millennium Diamond Estate for ₹ 35,29,500/-. The effective rate of purchase was ₹ 179/- per square feet. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the market rate in the said area was more than ₹ 1,500/- to ₹ 2,000/- per square feet and even construction cost was more than ₹ 500/- per square feet and required the assessee to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cost in the construction of halls was lower than the construction of entire flat. He further submitted that no material was brought on record by Revenue to show that the assessee has paid any amount more than what was disclosed in the registered sale deed for the purchase of property. Hence, it was his submission that the addition made cannot be sustained in law. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Richa Naresh Jain Vs ITO, ITA No. 3997/Ahd/2008 passed in Assessment Year 2005-06 order dated 13.08.2009 and submitted that the Tribunal in that case has held that the value on which stamp duty as charged at the time of registration of the property was on the basis of deemed market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in that case has held that where the assessee offers no explanation as to why the plot was sold to her at a lesser rate, notwithstanding that the burden was on the Department to show that sale consideration was not correctly shown, the only inference from the facts and circumstances of the case was that it was not so shown and no interference with the addition u/s 69B was called for. The Ld. DR further relied on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manjit Singh Vs. DCIT (2013) 30 taxmann.com 216 (Chd.) wherein it was held that sale consideration of an asset recorded in registered sale deed was generally understated and hence can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty over and above the amount stated in the registered sale deed and therefore, the addition made on account of undisclosed investment in the property was not justified. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Richa Naresh Jain Vs ITO (supra) and ACIT Vs. Shri Balkishan Poddar others (supra). On the other hand, the Ld. DR has supported the orders of the Lower Authorities and has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana Vs. CIT (supra) and the order of Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in the case of Manjit Singh Vs. DCIT (supra). We find that the Assessing Officer had a doubt on the basis of prevailing market rate in the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d powder expenses. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee's expense under the head 'synthetic powder' was ₹ 94,30,515/- which was three times the expenditure incurred in the preceding year whereas the increase in production of diamond was 25% only. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that powder was issued to workers on packet basis and stock lying at the place of workers was not considered for the stock at the end of the year and this method was accepted in scrutiny in past years. This explanation was found not acceptable by the Assessing Officer and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
