2020 (2) TMI 1180 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of explained income - addition on the basis of DVO's report - HELD THAT - Issue decided in SMT. USHA RANI TALLA AND OTHERS 2015 (7) TMI 250 - ITAT DELHI basis of which it could be said that the said that the investment shown by the appellant was understated and that anything above what was disclosed by the appellant. Thus, the condition precedent for making reference to the DVO by invoking the provisions of Sec. 142A was not satisfied in the present case. Moreover, on perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that nowhere the AO has mentioned that what are the mistakes and unreliability has been found out by the AO in the books of accounts of the appellant. Thus, the AO has not pointed out any defects in the books as far as related to the investment made by the appellant. AO has erred in referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the DVO's report on the value of investment in the property cannot replace the actual purchase value shown in the purchase deed - Assessing Officer has erred in adopting the value of the property as estimated by the DVO by replacing the value shown in the purchase deed. assessing officer has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It cannot be said that by giving opportunity of being heard for hearing immediately one day assessing officer has discharged his obligation of giving opportunity of being heard. Thus Ld. CIT(A) was right in observing that the AO has erred in making the addition on account of unexplained income of the assessee and accordingly rightly directed the AO to delete the addition in dispute - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained income.
2. Admission of additional evidence without giving the opportunity to AO under Rule 46A.
3. Validity of the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Income:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions of ?3,40,89,000/- for AY 2005-06 and ?2,28,46,000/- for AY 2009-10 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained income. The Tribunal found that the issues had already been adjudicated in favor of the assessee by the ITAT, Delhi 'H' Bench in a similar case (ITA No. 5698/Del/2014 and ITA No. 5974/Del/2014). The Tribunal referred to various precedents, including CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh, CIT vs. Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd., and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Arora, which established that the expression 'full value of consideration' used in Section 48 does not refer to market value but to the sale price mentioned in the sale deeds. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had erred in making additions based on the DVO's valuation without any material evidence of excess investment by the assessee.

2. Admission of Additional Evidence without Giving Opportunity to AO under Rule 46A:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it under Rule 46A. The Tribunal found that no additional evidence had been filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) that required sending to the AO under Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention the admission of any additional evidence. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

3. Validity of the Reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO):
The Tribunal examined whether the reference to the DVO was valid. It was noted that the AO had referred the matter to the DVO without any material evidence suggesting that the assessee had understated the investment. The Tribunal cited multiple cases, including Sargam Cinema vs. CIT and ITO vs. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, which held that a reference to the DVO could only be made if there was some material indicating that the investment shown by the assessee was not reliable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the assessee's books of accounts and had not recorded any reason for referring the matter to the DVO. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO was invalid, and the DVO's report could not replace the actual purchase value shown in the purchase deed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained income, dismissed the Revenue's contention regarding the admission of additional evidence, and invalidated the reference to the DVO. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.