9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seller and the outcome of his income tax proceedings as provisions of section 50C could have been invoked in seller's case - These aspects are not on record and since order of the CIT(A) is not correct both on facts and on law - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition under section 69B. After considering Assessee's submissions, the learned CIT(A) passed order as under : "4.3. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant, gone through the order of the AO and heard the AR in person besides perusing all other information available on record. It is seen from the records that this case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. One of the criterions for the year under consideration for CASS was AIR information. The impugned property was situated in Bengaluru city, which the appellant purchased for Rs.26,58,440/-. While payment of stamp duty was happening, as per the procedure prevalent, the registration authorities at that place, found out the market price to be Rs.44,78,875/- and accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also contested that without rejecting books and without pointing out defects in books, the AO cannot make a reference to DVO for valuation of the impugned site. Here,' there is a point in the submissions of the AR that without rejecting books or pointing out defects in books, reference to DVO is ill founded. A perusal of records revealed that no cogent reasons were furnished either in the body of the order or anywhere in the assessment records the reasons for referring to DVO. Leave alone, whether any opportunity was given to the appellant before adopting the differential value of ova report and the value as shown in books, the very reference to ova without rejecting books by showing defects in such books cannot be appreciated and it has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stamp duty, the SRO took the market value of the property at Rs.44,78,875/-, while book value being Rs.26,58,440/-, thus alleged extra amounts being not recorded at Rs.18,20,434/- in as much as SRO is concerned, whereas, in as much as DVO is concerned such differential amount as worked out by the AO stands at Rs.29,34,560/-. Since, the addition was made by the provisions of section 69B, even though the Revenue has not found out evidence for payment of extra amounts, having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad More, in my considered opinion, ends of justice are met if the addition made under section 69B is restricted to Rs.2,93,456/- or say Rs.2,93,460, and the AO is directed accordingly". 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no explanation from the Assessee. In the absence of any explanation A.O., even though not required, has referred the matter to the DVO for considering the market value which indicates value more than value estimated by the stamp Registration authority. In these circumstances, the Order of the CIT(A) determining the value at 10% of the registration value is not only without any basis, as contended by the Revenue in its grounds, but also perverse to say least. There is no basis for the CIT(A) to reduce the amount as was done by him. We are not in agreement with the said order. Since both Assessee and revenue are contesting the order and we are also of the view that CIT(A) has no basis to determine as such, we have no option than to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
