9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 2.2.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 5,59,66,000/- made by the AO u/s 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') on the basis of the valuation r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of this property. The DVO assessed the value at Rs. 8,99,66,000/- as against the declared cost price at Rs. 3,50,00,000/-. On being called upon to explain the difference between the two, the assessee submitted that the estimate of fair market value of the property by the DVO was not proper. Unconvinced with the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt than the declared consideration despite there being a search action carried out against the assessee. Here is a case in which the assessee claimed to have purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 3.50 crore and the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,59,66,000/- lac simply on the basis of difference between the DVO's report and apparent sale consideration. No attempt has been made for verifying the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 56(2)(vii)(b) with the sole intention of bringing under-hand payment of sale consideration of immovable property to tax. This provision has been enshrined w.e.f. the A.Y. 2014-15 and is not applicable retrospectively to the A.Y. 2006-07 under consideration. Since this provision is prospective and there is no other authentic evidence of the assessee having actually made any investment over and ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
