9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r no. 19/2019 issued by CBDT which mandates that no order shall be passed without there being Valid Document Identification Number (DIN). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of assessee that the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes of law as the same was passed undated & not digitally signed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned AO under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed without having valid jurisdiction. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the appellant and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 - ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 - ITA No. 2633/Del/2022 AY 2019-20 - ITA No. 2634/Del/2022 AY 2020-21 - ITA No. 2635/Del/2022 Appels filed by the revenue: AY 2017-18 - ITA No. 2844/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 - ITA No. 2845/Del/2022 AY 2019-20 - ITA No. 2846/Del/2022 3. In the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019- 20 and 2020-21, the common issue is regarding total disallowance of purchases made by AO and partially sustained by the ld. CIT(A) by applying the gross profit rate. In the appeals filed by the Revenue for all the three years, the only issue is regarding the deletion of addition by the ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged bogus purchases whereby ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the gross profit rate. 4. In addition to the above-mentioned common issue in four years, there is an additional issue in A.Y. 2018-19 regarding the addition of Rs. 2,35,48,600/- on account of difference between purchase price of land acquired by assessee and stamp duty value of such land. Alleged Bogus purchases: 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - xiv. M/s. Rudrani Multi Trade - 2,13,75,600 - - xv. M/s. Sai Enterprises - 6,04,32,128 - - xvi M/s. Sai Enterprises - 5,85,95,852 - - xvii. M/s. Ghanshyam Enterprises - 1,78,11,882 - - xviii. M/s. Spark Infrapower (P) Ltd. - - 2,06,67,540 - xix. M/s. Jai Bhawani Enterprises - - 9,30,54,020 40,69,867 Total 8,00,23,080 122,61,97,714 92,59,10,675 40,69,867 Total Parties (2) (17) (3) (1) 10. The reasoning given by Assessing Officer for disallowing the purchases in all these years is verbatim same as can also be seen from findings recorded by the AO in the Assessment Orders at the second last page Para 6 (for AY 2017-18)/ 5th last page Para 6 (for AY 2018-19)/ 3rd last page Para 6 (for AY 2019-20, and 3rd last page Para 6 (for AY 2020- 21), for respective Assessment Years. 11. The main allegations coming out from the findings recorded by the AO in assessment order are as under: i. Statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja wherein he has stated that he has got purchase invoice issued in some cases. ii. Non-receipt of reply from 6 parties out of a total of 19 parties in response to the notice issued by AO u/s 133(6). iii. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission explaining as under:- a) That the primary reason for making addition on account of bogus purchases is the statement of Manoj Dudeja recorded in August, 2020. b) Firstly, this statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja is with reference to only two suppliers namely SK Trading and Singh Enterprises and purchases from these two parties are only in the A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. There is no whisper linkage of any other supplier whatsoever in the statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja and hence there is no justification for disallowing the purchases from other parties. c) Even these two firms namely SK Trading and Singh Enterprises do not belong to Mr. Manoj Dudeja. In fact Mr. Manoj Dudeja has categorically stated in his statement which has also been quoted by the AO in the Assessment Order that he has no relation either with SK Trading or with Singh Enterprises as is evident from PB Page 76 and 77 of the Statements Paper Book and also quoted by AO/CIT(A). 14. Based on the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of whole purchases holding the same to be bogus. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 5.47% of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arma. ........... 10. .................. But I am not agree with him as he stated. I also don't know about sachin & Singh Enterprises and also don't know about his business............ Q.55. You are once again accorded an opportunity to State your association with M/s SK Trading Co. Ans: I come to know about SK Trading Co. from the market that it is a bogus company used for accommodation entries. I had facilitated a very entries for some work. Q.56. You are once again accorded an opportunity to State your association with Singh Enterprises. Ans: I come to know about Singh Enterprises from the market that it is a bogus company used for accommodation entries. I had facilitated a very few entries for some entries. .............................." 19. On the basis of above statement, it was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee as Mr. Manoj Dudeja has initially on 10.08.2020 and 11.08.2020 categorically denied having given any accommodation entry and has also stated that he does not have any relation with SK Trading and Singh Enterprises. In the statement recorded on 13.08.2020, Mr. Manoj Dudeja state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. The same are as under: As regards the statement of Mr. Akshat Jain (Director of the company) - (PB pg. 1-23) 25. The AO interpreted the statement of Mr. Akshat Jain to draw adverse inference. But vide reply letter dated 23.08.2021 before Asst. Director Income Tax Investigation, the assessee has given the following details: a) Ledgers account b) Copy of Invoices c) Transport Receipt/Bilty d) Form C e) Trip Sheet/E-way Bills f) Kanta Parchis g) Weighing Slips h) Bank statement showing payment to the suppliers. 26. Thereafter, no further details were called for by the ADIT Investigation. 27. Also, all the above-mentioned details were also furnished before the AO vide letter dated 22.03.2022, alongwith all annexures. A copy of such common reply filed by the assessee with respect to AY 2017-18, AY 2018- 19, AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 has been filed before us in the paper book. 28. Mr. Akshat Jain in his statement has categorically stated that all the purchases mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10 in respect of M/s. Mahavir Transmission Limited (pertaining to FY 2017-18) during the course of search proceedings at 7/33, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. Please acknowledge it and explain why these invoices are kept here. Ans: Yes, I acknowledge that purchase invoice in respect of M/s. Mahavir Transmission Limited (pertaining to FY 2017-18) have been found and seized during the course of search proceedings at 7/33, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. I have no idea why these invoices have been kept here. Accountant Mr. Raman Sharma can explain about the same....... Q. 15 Please state have the goods have been received here at 7/33, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as the purchase invoices (found and seized as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10) which have been issued by the suppliers in the name of M/s. Mahavir Transmission Limited and the place of delivery has been shown as 7/33, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. Ans: I submit that no goods have been received here at 7/33, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as mentioned in the purchase invoice (found and seized as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10) which have been issued by the suppliers in the name of M/s. Mahavir Tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 5. Dheeraj Sales, 6. Ghanshyam Enterprises, 7. Gulshan Tradelinks, 8. Kapil Enterprises, 9. Shri Ganpati Traders, 10. Dheeraj Sales Corporation? Please also produce their ledger accounts. Ans. Out of the entities stated by you Kumar Traders, Main Road Vikasnagar is a supplier of paint and packaging material to us. The annual transaction does not exceed 12,000/-. The other entities are not known to me. To the best of my knowledge this premise of Mahavir Transmission Limited had never dealt with any of them in business during last 4-5 years. Q. 15. Please state nature of your business transactions with Radhey Enterpirses? Ans. As informed earlier Radhey Enterpirses is a supplier of aluminium rod coil and steel to this factory. Q. 16 What else do you know anything else about Radhey Enterprises or its ownership. Ans. No, I do not know anything else about Radhey Enterprises or its ownership. Q. 17 As per the information available with the Department, your establishment namely Mahavir Transmission Limited has 'purchase transactions' with the entities mentioned in Q. No. 14 above. What do you have to say in this regard? Ans. Sir, I like to state that as per best of my k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no material or allegation that cash was withdrawn against these payments made by the assessee company. On the contrary, the bank statement confirms that these payments were applied to make further payment to other firms. iii. In fact in the show-cause notice dated 28.01.2022 issued to the assessee (PB Page 47 to 49), the assessing officer himself has stated that when the purchase and sale details of SK Trading was examined on GSTIN Portal it was found that SK Trading has purchased material from M/s. Advance Retail, M/s. Dheeraj Sales Corp. and M/s. Kumar Traders etc. Similarly, when the purchase and sale details of M/s. Singh Enterprises (PB Page 67) were examined on the GSTIN Portal, it was found that Ms. Singh Enterprises has purchased material from Advance Retail, Ganpati Traders etc. iv. Therefore, in fact the bank statements of the suppliers support the case of the assessee. v. Thus, the AO was not justified in drawing any adverse inferences against the assessee. As regards the alleged inactive GST status of suppliers and non filing of returns by suppliers 37. The AO held that the status of these suppliers is inactive on the GST Portal and they are non-filers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry and not relevant to the case under consideration cannot contribute to holding of any adverse inference against the assessee. 42. It was pointed out that all these invoices have been submitted by the suppliers to the GST Authorities and have also been accepted as is evident from the GSTR-2A return of the supplier available on the GST Portal. As regards the allegation that vehicle number stated on the invoice could not be verified. 43. It was submitted that the AO has ignored the detailed reply submitted by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued by him whereby it was clarified that information referred by the assessing officer is on the basis of private website "Car Info". The App used by AO only states that it could not fetch the details of vehicle number from RTO. 44. In support of the case, the assessee submitted copies of the status of vehicle number available on website namely "Vahan" which is the official website of the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India. The assessee also submitted the copy of the Registration Certificate/Trip sheet issued by the Tax Authorities by Department or verification of vehicle number by Sales Tax Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self carried out the verification by issuing notices under section 133(6) and all such notices got duly served and even replies were received from 13 parties. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in drawing adverse inference on this account. 50. It was further submitted that the assessee has made purchases from hundreds of parties during the relevant year, out of which purchases from 19 parties have been doubted by the AO without any tangible/rational basis (including 2 parties referred in statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja). 51. It was also submitted by the assessee that in respect of the purchases from all the impugned 19 parties, the appellant had filed consolidated submissions/reply dated 22.03.2022 before the AO explaining the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee along with documentary evidence therefor. The same reply and documentary evidences were submitted before ld. CIT(A) also. The relevant extract of the written submission filed before ld. CIT(A) which has also been quoted by the ld. CIT(A) in his order at Page 70 of the Order is being reproduced below: Volume of paper book Pages No. 2 837 to 1518 3 1519 to 2785 4 2786 to 4178 5 4179 to 5339 6 5360 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocesses there is loss of material is shape of burning loss. 56. It is an undisputed fact that no doubt has been casted on quantitative details and value of sales and stock as declared/maintained by the assessee and duly disclosed in the tax audit report(s) and income tax returns. 57. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that: i. Complete stock details were filed during the assessment proceedings and the same have not been doubted by assessing officer nor any discrepancy has been pointed out by the assessing officer. ii. The sales as declared by the assessee stands accepted. The quantity of products sold and the value of sale transactions have not been doubted; iii. Stock records have been accepted as recorded in the books; iv. Profit earned by the appellant on the entire sales and offered to tax stands accepted; v. There is no allegation of any sales made outside the books of accounts; vi. The yield of the products has not been disputed. 58. We find that the ld. CIT(A) duly took note of the above submissions made by the assessee and has also acknowledged the fact that no doubt has been casted during the assessment proceedings by the AO on the quantitative det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the Assessment Order itself. The Assessing Officer, being aware of the fact that Mr. Manoj Dudeja is not the owner of these two concerns and some other persons are the owners of these two concerns, no efforts were made to take statement of owners of these two concerns. Further the assessee company during the course of search as well as during the course of the assessment proceedings categorically rebutted the allegation levied against it on the basis of the statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja. In fact the appellant company insisted for the cross examination of Mr. Manoj Dudeja/Gopal even if the statement is to be considered to be adverse to the assessee. 62. The Assessing Officer has admitted in the assessment order at the second last page (AY 2017-18)/ 5th last page (AY 2018-19)/ 3rd last page (AY 2019-20, AY 2020-21), Para 6(iii)of the Assessment Order that it has failed to provide the cross-examination as Mr. Manoj Dudeja/ Gopal did not appear in response to the summon issued to him. The allegation of AO was based on the statement of Mr. Manoj Dudeja and it was incumbent upon him to allow cross examination to the assessee in case he wants to rely upon his statement against the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was only house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly explained that he was looking after the production unit at 138, Industrial Estate, Vikas Marg, Dehradun and these purchases were related to the other units which is located at KH No. 1684, Line Jeevan Gudh, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. On-going through the statement of Mr. Anil Jain, it is apparent that what he has stated was with reference to the unit at 138, Industrial Estate, Vikas Marg, Dehradun and accordingly, there was no reason to draw adverse inference on that basis. 66. As regards the non-filing of the tax returns, it is a matter on record that the AO has issued notices to all these 19 parties under section 133(6) and all notices have been duly delivered and in fact replies have been received from 13 parties confirming that each of these parties have made sales to the appellant company. The AO has made an independent enquiry and nothing adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year in which purchases have been made from these suppliers. 69. In any case the AO himself has recorded in the assessment order that he has issued notice under section 133(6) to all these 19 parties and he has received replies from 13 parties. In respect of remaining six parties, it is not the case of the AO that replies have not been received. If that be so, then appellant company cannot be faulted if these suppliers have not responded to the notices issued by the assessing officer. The reliance being placed by Revenue upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of N. K. Industries in respect of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of gross profit rate is not relevant as in the present case the purchases itself are genuine as the assessee has produced sufficient evidences including the movement of goods of the purchases made by it. The revenue's observations that the assessee is engaged in the job work activity taken for Government Bodies is factually incorrect. The appellant company is engaged in the manufacturing as well as supplying of Aluminium Conductor to various Electricity Board and to the contractors which execute the Government Projects. In the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also submitted the detailed analysis of the stock register, yield, production, sale, complete quantitative details. The Revenue has not doubted on quantitative details of sale declared by the appellant company which has also been accepted. The profit earned by the appellant company from these sales have also been taxed. The ld. CIT(A) has also endorsed above contention of the appellant company. However, the ld. CIT(A) having endorsed the entire contentions of the assessee erred in directing to apply gross profit rate on the purchases which defies logic. The ld. CIT(A) having not pointed out any defect in any of the document or explanation submitted by the assessee in respect of the purchases made by it, the entire addition has to be deleted. 71. The assessee has duly discharged their onus relating to purchases made by it from those purchase which have not been doubted by the AO by submitting the necessary evidence in support thereof. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of deletion of addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 2,35,98,600/- on account of the difference in purchase price (i.e. Rs. 1,04,17,400/-) and the stamp duty value (i.e. Rs. 3,40,16,000/-) of the property by invoking the provision of section 50C. 77. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 78. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended by way of written submission (PB Pg. 460-521) that: i. The AO has failed to consider the valuation report submitted by the assessee. ii. No cogent material/concrete evidence has been brought on record by the AO to doubt the validity and sanctity of the valuation report. iii. It was incumbent on the AO to refer the matter to the DVO in case the valuation report submitted by the assessee was to be ignored by the AO and in the absence of such reference, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. iv. It was pointed out that Section 50C is not applicable on the assessee company as the assessee company is not the seller of the property but the purchaser. Section 50C applies on the seller of the property. On this aspect, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer. Following third proviso shall be inserted after the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 50C by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4- 2019 : Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Following item (B) shall be substituted for the existing item (B) of subclause (b) of clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019 : (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely:- (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration: Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause : Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of agreement fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue", "jewellery", "property", "relative" and "stamp duty value" shall have the same meanings as respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to clause (vii).] Following clause (xi) shall be inserted after clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto." 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under: "Estimation of value of assets by Valuation Officer. 142A. (1) The Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassess- ment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him. (2) The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. (3) The Valuation Officer, on a reference made under sub-section (1), shall, for the purpose of estimating the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash deposit, the Assessing Officer has treated it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Whereas, while deciding assessee's appeal learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, has accepted assessee's contention that the addition cannot be made under section 68 of the Act, however, he made the addition under section 69A of the Act. On a reading of section 68 as well as 69A of the Act, it becomes very much clear, while section 68 speaks of any sum found credited in the books of assessee in a particular year the source of which cannot be explained can be treated as unexplained cash credit, section 69A speaks of a situation where the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not recorded in the books of accounts maintained for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of such money, bullion etc. then it shall be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Thus, the conditions and situations for applicability of section 68 and section 69A of the Act are different. Therefore, unless the conditions of the specific provision are fulfilled, no addition can be made. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aar Pee Apartments P. ltd. (supra) which was followed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. (supra), I hold that the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act cannot be converted into Sec. 69C of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the addition. Action of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard cannot be held as valid and sustainable being bad in law. Therefore, ground no. 1 & 2 of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition. Since, the grievance of assessee has been allowed in view of findings recorded by me in the earlier part of this order. Therefore, other grounds of assessee on merits are not being adjudicated upon as having become academic." * Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. CIT, Bareilly and Another 2017 (7) TMI 870 - Allahabad High Court Dated: - 18-7-2017 "In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the gift received by the appellant-assessee as his personal income under Section 68 of the Act and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been continuously stating that the fair market value of the property is much lower than the stamp duty value, the AO has to mandatorily refer the valuation of the property to the Valuation Officer and having failed to do so, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. There are a number of judgments on this issue wherein it has been held that once the assessee has disputed the stamp duty value and has submitted the valuation report, the AO is duty bound to refer the valuation to DVO in case he proposes to make an addition. Having failed to do so, the addition is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. 90. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard: * DCIT CIRCLE-6 Jaipur Vs. Shri Goverdhan Prasad Singhal and (Vice- Versa) 2022 (7) TMI 1202 - ITAT Jaipur Dated: - 7-6-2022 "13. In the present case, it is noted that the Assessing officer neither discussed the contentions of the assessee for taking actual consideration as fair market value of the property sold nor referred the matter to the DVO as was required u/s 50C (2) of the Act despite specific prayer made by the assessee at the first stage. The AO and the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter to the DVO, hence, the AO was compelled to complete the assessment by adopting the guidelines value considered by the SRO. But in the present case, the assessment was completed u/s. 144/147 of the Act in the absence of the assessee. Only when the matter carried to first appellate stage, the assessee objected to the value adopted by the AO without referring the matter to the DVO by giving the detailed reasons as to why the sale consideration was lesser amount. Hence, the decision relied by ld. DR is distinguishable on facts. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) to interfere and, accordingly, dismiss the grounds of the revenue." * Neelavara Sanjeeva Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7 (2) (1), Bangalore 2021 (12) TMI 1203 - ITAT Bangalore Dated: - 29-11- 2021 "22. In the present case before us also, the AO completely ignored the valuation report of the registered valuer submitted by the assessee and submissions made thereon. The AO mechanically applied the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) to bring the difference of stamp duty valuation and actual sale consideration paid by the assessee, without making any efforts to find out the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see without making any efforts to find out the actual cost of the property when in fact the assessee stated that the property when purchased was under semi construction stage and there were disputes between builders and the purchasers and ultimately the builder was abandoned the project and left. The assessee also stated that what was purchased as per the agreement is different than what was given to him as the property was sold to two persons. So there is dispute in the area acquired by the assessee also. In such circumstances, it was all the more necessary for the Assessing Officer to refer it to the Valuation Officer which he miserably failed. Even at the stage of appellate proceedings when the assessee produced Valuation Officer's report who valued Flat No. 601 in the very same Building at Rs..1,00,76,000/- the ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report and in turn the Valuation Officer's report which the ld. CIT(A) failed to do so. In such circumstances the addition made by the Assessing Officer is totally unjustified and cannot be sustained. We are also of the opinion that the revenue cannot be allowed a second inning by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
