9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . HDFC Ltd. is also of no consequence vis-à-vis the controversy before us, in as much as the valuation by HDFC Ltd. is for its own purpose of examining the feasibility of lending money to the assessee for acquisition of the said property. Furthermore, a valuation report, by its very nature, is only an estimation of value, and, at best can be a source for further enquiries but the valuation report by itself cannot be construed as an evidence which establishes understatement of purchase consideration. DVO’s estimation of fair market value cannot be accepted as a conclusive evidence for establishing that any additional consideration over and above the stated consideration has passed between a buyer and seller. See Commissioner of Income-tax Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 9,39,61,200/- by invoking section 69B of the Act. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the respondent assessee purchased a property viz. Unit No.401, Commerze Zone, Yeravada, Pune, from M/s. K. Reheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. vide a purchase agreement dated 24/03/2009 for a consideration of ₹ 9,81,60,000/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 69B of the Act and determined an amount of ₹ 9,39,61,200/- as value of investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid property which was not recorded in the books of account. Thus, an addition of ₹ 9,39,61,200/- was made by invoking secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was higher than the stated consideration. Secondly, as per the Assessing Officer the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., who had advanced loan of ₹ 9,50,00,000/- to the assessee towards purchase of the impugned property had valued the property at ₹ 13.74 crores, which also higher than the stated value of the transaction. Thirdly, as per the Assessing Officer the purchase agreement did not indicate the purchase of 55 Nos. of parking slots, whereas the Leave and Licence Agreement entered into by the assessee indicated that such parking slots were at the exclusive disposal of the assessee company; the Assessing Officer inferred that stated consideration did not include the value paid for the parking slots. In the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of parking slots. The Ld. Representative for the assessee also clarified that the assessee has not paid any additional consideration towards the purchase of the parking slots other than the amount stated in the purchase deed. 8. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the points raised by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, which we have already adverted to in the earlier part of the order and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The Ld. DR submitted that there was circumstantial evidence to show that the consideration stated in the purchase deed was undervalued, in as much as the valuation report prepared by HDFC Ltd., showed that the value of the property was much higher than the stated consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, what is required to be determined in the present case is as to whether the Assessing Officer has discharged such a burden. 9. The facts, as emerging from the orders of the authorities below as well as the material on record clearly establishes that the Assessing Officer did not have any clinching evidence to suggest that the assessee has paid any consideration for purchase of property over and above the stated consideration. The reference made by the Assessing Officer to the value determined by the stamp valuation authority for the purposes of payment of stamp duty cannot be taken as an evidence to demonstrate that assessee has actually paid any consideration over and above the stated consideration. The reference by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found to be in tune with the contents of the purchase agreement dated 24/3/2009, copy of which has also been placed before us in the Paper Book. Therefore, we find no error on the part of CIT(A) in negating the aforesaid stand of the Assessing Officer . 11. In so far as the reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs. CIT(supra) is concerned, the same does not support the instant case of the Revenue; and, rather the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court has also approved the proposition that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that real investment exceeds the investment shown in the books of account of the assessee in the context of section 69B of the Act. Of course, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
