TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared by him. AO has merely made an addition on the basis of the report obtained from the DVO without bringing any evidence on record. He has also not established that the details/evidences filed by the assessee are wrong. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. We, therefore, dismiss the ground of appeal filed by the revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2281/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - Shri R.S. Syal, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR. For the Respondent : Shri Sumit Goel, CA. ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said agreement was filed during the assessment proceedings wherein the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the stamp duty paid by the assessee was as per Circle rate amounting to ₹ 5,60,00,000/-. Local authority adopted the value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty payment at ₹ 5,60,00,000/- and the same was mentioned in the agreement, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad. The Ld. Assessing Officer referred the property to the DVO u/s 142A, since the purchase value of the said property was less than the price adopted by the stamp duty authorities for the purposes of payment of stamp duty. The Ld. DVO vide his report dated 28.11.2008 determined the value of the property at ₹ 5,60,00,000. 2.2. Ld. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for any source of income and the assessee did not offer any explanation, neither did he file any evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee paid over and above the amount which was recorded in the books of account. The ld. Assessing Officer also referred to section 50C of the Act and held that the deeming provision would be applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. 3.2. Ld. CIT(A) after going through the submissions of the assessee, as well as the report submitted by the ld. Assessing Officer, held that the Assessing Officer could not make any addition on the basis of the report of the DVO, without bringing any evidence to disregard the evidence brought on record by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,87,86,640 Amount incurred 1.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 34,83,470 Amount incurred 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 41,58,397 Amount incurred 1.04.2008 to 18.11.2008 (UPTO THE DATE OF VISIT OF D.V.O) 15,18,017 TOTAL 3,79,46,524 4.3. The ld.AR further submitted that the DVO had inspected the property on 18.11.2008, and valued the property at ₹ 5,60,00,000/- by observing as under:- Method of Valuation Meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs ITO (supra), Hon'ble Court has held that the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration received on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely that he did not receive any consideration more than what has been declared by him, therefore, if the revenue seeks to hold that the assessee has received more than what has been declared by him in respect of the assessment in question, the onus would lie on the revenue to prove this fact by bringing some material on record. 5.2. In the facts of the present case, as it is apparent from the assessment order that the ld. Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence/material on record to show that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
