9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1454 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B - unexplained investment made on the basis of DVO s report - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Following the judgment of CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society 2011 (3) TMI 1326 - Allahabad High Court we hold that the reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of account is bad and therefore the valuation report submitted consequent thereto cannot be relied on for making an addition. Thus, no addition on account of unexplained investment is sustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we accordingly confirm the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against deletion of addition under section 69B of the Act based on unexplained investment in a property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reference to DVO without Rejecting Books of Account: The primary issue in this case revolves around the validity of the reference made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without rejecting the books of account of the assessee. The appellant argued that the reference to the DVO was invalid as it was made without rejecting the books of account, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT. The appellant contended that the reference itself was flawed, and the subsequent valuation report could not be relied upon for making additions. 2. Contentions and Case Laws: The counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to support their argument. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that rejection of books of account was not a prerequisite for enquiring into valuation under section 142A of the Act. The appellant contested this argument by referring to contradictory judgments by other High Courts. 3. Judicial Precedents and Decision: The Tribunal examined the orders of the lower authorities and the submissions made by both parties. It noted that the Assessing Officer had referred the case to the DVO without rejecting the books of account, which was later set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the judgment in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT, which established that a reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of account was not valid. It also highlighted the consistent application of this principle by various courts across the country. 4. Final Decision and Outcome: Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition under section 69B of the Act. It dismissed the revenue's appeals, concluding that the reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of account was improper and the valuation report based on such reference could not be relied upon. The Tribunal aligned its decision with the precedent set by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and other relevant judgments, emphasizing the necessity of rejecting books of account before making a reference for valuation. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals and the confirmation of the order deleting the addition of unexplained investment in the property.
|
