TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-owners of the house in question - HELD THAT:- AO has even not examined Shri Iqbaljit Singh to ascertain the actual sale consideration of the said house. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel even the other co-owners were not examined. As per the law laid down in the case of Daulat Ram Rawat Mal [ 1972 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] in the present case the documentary evidence would prevail over the oral statement relied upon by the AO. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, we allow this ground of the appeal of the assessee and set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Addition of low household expenses - HELD THAT:- As no incriminating material was recovered during the course of search and seizure action, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition made by the AO on account of house hold expenses.CIT(A) has not given any cogent and convincing reason for sustaining the addition on account of the household expenses. In our considered view the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not based on any evidence on record. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) has erred in giving part relief to the appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed investment in the residential buildup house amounting ₹ 1,73,202/- without any basis. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering and ignoring the submissions and facts as filed before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or dispose off. 3. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the assessee and her mother-in-law Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, jointly purchased a builtup house in the year 2012. The share of the assessee in the said house is 25% and share of her mother-in-law is 75%. Although, during the course of search no evidence was recovered, yet the assessee submitted before the AO that in the assessment year 2014-14 an amount of ₹ 3,20,000/- and in assessment year 2015-16 an amount of ₹ 19,53,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the search action no incriminating evidence was recovered or seized in respect of the alleged investment by the assessee and the co-owner of the said house. Now the only issue which requires determination is whether the addition made/sustained on the basis of valuation report obtained by the AO is sustainable in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the other cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel. 6. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal (supra), has held that when no material is found to justify the action of AO in referring the matter to the DVO for his opinion, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no consequence. In the said case the assessee has filed his return of income. Subsequently, a search u/s 132 of the Act and survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of a company, its group companies and directors of those companies. On the basis of the said operation, AO issued notice u/s 153(C) of the Act to the assessee. The assessee requested to treat the return already filed as return in response to the notice u/s 153(C) of the Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that during the relevant year an amount of ₹ 19,53,000/- was spent for renovation of the built-up house jointly purchased by the her and Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. The AO rejecting the contention of the assessee, made addition of ₹ 19,69,875/- (being 25% of the total amount as per the valuation report) as undisclosed investment. The AO further made addition of ₹ 3,75,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gain. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of expenditure incurred on renovation of house to ₹ 10,57,127/-, however, confirmed the addition made on account of undisclosed capital gain. 2. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in giving part relief to the appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed investment in the residential buildup house amounting ₹ 10,57,127/- without any basis. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the sale agreement as seized and has erred in relying only on the oral statement of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 68 lacs and not for ₹ 83 lacs. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Rawat Mal vs. CIT 87 ITR 349 , the Ld. counsel submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the said case, when the documentary evidence is pitted against oral evidence then the documentary evidence would prevail. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the settled law the statement recorded during search has no evidentiary value unless it is corroborated by the other evidence. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel submitted that the authorities below have made/sustained the addition on surmises and conjectures, therefore liable to be deleted and also contrary to the settled principles of law. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the co-owner has stated before the competent authority that an amount of ₹ 35 lacs was received in cash, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly made addition to the extent of the share of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel before us. As pointed out by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the addition on account of the undisclosed household expenses amounting ₹ 1,50,000/- without any basis. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A). 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering and ignoring the submissions and facts as filed before the CIT (A) as well as before the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or dispose off. 3. Ground No.1, 4, 5 6 of this appeal are general in nature hence, do not require specific adjudication. 4. Vide Ground No. 2 the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,19,608/- out of the total addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment/ expenses incurred in renovation in the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Since this issue is arising out of the common set of facts in the case of her co-owner Smt. Jatinder Kaur in ITA No. 70-71/Chd/2021 discussed above and since we have decided the identical i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed investment in the residential buildup house amounting ₹ 31,71,381/- without any basis. 3. That the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed household expenses amounting ₹ 1,50,000/- without any basis. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A). 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering and ignoring the submissions and facts as filed before the CIT (A) as well as before the assessing officer. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or dispose off. 3. Since we have decided both the issues in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the AY 2014-15 aforesaid, consistent with our findings in the assessee s case for the AY 2014- 15 aforesaid, we allow ground No. 2 3 of this appeal and set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Since, we have decided the substantial issues in favour of the assessee, we do not deem it necessary to adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
