9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the valuation report of the DVO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO could not make any addition on the basis of the report of the DVO ignoring the fact that the valuation report of the DVO being an opinion of the expert, is an admissible evidence." 2. Brief facts as recorded by the authorities below are as under:- 2.1. The assessee filed its return of income on 17.11.2006 declaring a loss of Rs. (-) 44,090/- which was processed u/s 143(2) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a commercial building No. 5, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a copy of the valuation report, prepared by a government approved valuer of the property purchased by the assessee, details of the amount spent by the assessee towards purchase and construction on the land and building upto the date of visit of site by the DVO, photocopies of the cheques received by the assessee from M/s Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd. on 8.2.2001 for Rs. 3 lakh. The copies of the above details were sent to the ld. Assessing Officer for his report. Ld. Assessing Officer vide his report dated 23.9.2009 submitted three instances wherein the value as per circle rate has been stated to be Rs. 16,000 per sq meter perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was on the basis of the circle rate adopted by the stamp duty Registrar, the value of the property would be the amount determined by the Registrar of Stamps for the purposes of payment of stamp duty, amounting to Rs. 5,60,00,000. Ld. DR submitted that there has been no explanation given by the assessee for the investment that has exceeded the amount recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 4.2. On the contrary, the ld. AR submitted that provisions of section 69B are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer may entertain a doubt that the assessee might have paid excess money. At the same time, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consideration has been received by the assessee. 5. We have perused the records, the orders passed by the authorities below and the judgements relied upon by the assessee. It is a well-settled principle of law that what is apparent is real until the contrary is proved and the burden of proof lies upon the person who alleges that the apparent is not real. In the facts of the present case, the ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, must prove that the falsity of the entries/transactions in the books of accounts as maintained by the assessee, on the basis of material/evidences on record. 5.1. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese vs ITO (supra), Hon'ble Court has held that "the burden of showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
