9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Assessee. Before us, Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision nor could controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.” Therefore, following the above order of the Tribunal, we observed that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1702/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri B. L. Yadav, Sr. DR For the Respondent :Shri S. N. Divetia, AR ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of DVO s report the AO made the impugned addition of ₹ 70,16,582/-. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO Anr.310 ITR 31 (2009) (Guj) deleted the addition of ₹ 70,16,582/- by observing as under :- 2.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant s submission. It is not in dispute that appellant was 50% owner of the land along with her husband Shri Deepak S. Contractor. The identical addition was made in the case of Deepak S. Contractor and CIT(A) XV, Ahmedabad passed order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfilled. 7. After going through facts of the case, the AO is directed to delete the addition as honourable Gujarat High Court decision 310 ITR 31 is directly applicable in the appellant s case as mentioned in para -6 above. The value of the property was declared as per registered valuer s report by the appellant and the value estimated by the DVO was less than the declared by the appellant, therefore, 310 ITR 31 is applicable. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed. My learned colleague CIT(A) XV, Ahmedabad in the case of appellant s husband who is joint owner of the property held that in view of the jurisdictional High Court decision, the reference made by the assessing officer under section 55A to DVO is without jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief to the assessee had relied on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiraben Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO 310 ITR 31 (Guj) and had held that the ratio of the aforesaid decision was directly applicable to the case of Assessee. Before us, Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision nor could controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. In the case before us the facts and circumstances are identical to that of Shri Dipakbhai Shankarlal Contractor (supra). Therefore, following the above order of the Tribunal, we observed that ld. CIT(A) has righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
