9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2116 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investment in property purchased - addition confirmed purely on the basis of DVO report - Held that - There was no evidence or material to suggest that the extra consideration has passed on from the assessee to the seller and no other material was available with the AO except DVO s report for making addition under section 69B of the Act. Hence respectfully following the judgments of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (2010 (12) TMI 846 - Delhi High Court) and other decisions cited we hold that no addition can be made in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,43,26,000 as undisclosed investment in property based on the DVO's report. 2. Ignoring judgments of jurisdictional High Court regarding addition based on DVO report. 3. Ignoring deficiencies in the DVO's valuation report. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 1,43,26,000 as Undisclosed Investment in Property: The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 7,92,612 and purchased a property for Rs. 3,25,00,000. The AO, based on a DVO report, valued the property at Rs. 4,68,26,000, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,43,26,000 under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as undisclosed investment. The assessee argued that no evidence substantiated the claim of additional consideration beyond the sale deed amount. The Tribunal noted that the AO had solely relied on the DVO's report without any corroborative evidence of extra consideration passing between parties. 2. Ignoring Judgments of Jurisdictional High Court: The assessee cited the judgment of CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Delhi), where it was held that an addition based solely on the DVO's report without any material evidence is not justified. The Tribunal observed that similar to the Puneet Sabharwal case, the AO in the present case had no evidence other than the DVO's report to substantiate the claim of undisclosed investment. The Tribunal also referenced CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46, where the High Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the revenue to establish any understatement or concealment of income. 3. Ignoring Deficiencies in the DVO's Valuation Report: The assessee submitted additional valuation reports highlighting deficiencies in the DVO's report, which were not adequately considered by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the DVO's report alone, without any supporting evidence, cannot conclusively prove the fact of unexplained investment. The Tribunal also referenced other judgments, including CIT Vs. S.K. Construction Co. and CIT Vs. S. Kalaivani, supporting the view that additions based solely on DVO's report are not sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence or material to suggest that extra consideration had passed from the assessee to the seller. The DVO's report alone was insufficient to justify the addition under section 69B. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, and the addition of Rs. 1,43,26,000 was deleted. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond the DVO's report to substantiate claims of undisclosed investments.
|
