9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus we hold that the AO could not tax the said amounts merely based upon the DVO's report in the absence of any corroborative material to point out under-valuation of the property in question. Therefore, we accept the grievance of the assessee as justified. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the ld CIT(A) are reversed and the additions are hereby deleted, for all the Assessment Years, i.e., from A.Y. 2007-08 to 2013-14. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% ₹ 15,79,740/- 6,23,250/- 9,56,490/- 2009-2010 15% ₹ 23,69,610/- 9,34,875/- 4,34,735/- 2010-2011 15% ₹ 23,69,610/- 9,34,875/- 14,34,735/- 2011-2012 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- 2012-2013 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- 2013-2014 20% ₹ 31,59,480/- 12,46,500/- 19,12,980/- Total 100% ₹ 1,57,97,400 62,32,500/- 95,64,900/- 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer referring Section 153A of the Act, interalia, observing as under: "4.4 I have carefully gone through the assessment order and written submission sent by post received in this office on 02.12.2016. I do not find merit in the various contentions of the appellant. It is relevant to mention here section 153A of the Act. Explanation for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that - (i) Save as otherwise provided in this section. section 153B of the Act and section 153C of the Act, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section: A plain reading of this explanation makes it clear that while making an assessment or re-assessment u/s 153A of the Act, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er purchase the assessee done additions and alteration works thoroughly and internal works (and a few works on second floor also) building of very richer specifications and of built up area approximately 66 M2". The ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the DVO has no evidence in support of his claim in the Valuation Report that when the residential house, which was purchased by the assessee bears 'Ordinary Construction' and after its purchase thorough addition and alteration work was done by the assessee, and even internal work of two stories and therefore, in the absence of any evidence brought on records, the Report of the Valuation Officer lacks credibility and smacks of malafide action against the assessee. 6. In support, the ld. counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in 'CIT Vs Bajrang Lal Bansal', (2011) 335 ITR 0572 (Del),where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed for deletion of the addition made on the basis of the report of the DVO holding that the report of the DVO alone is not an information warranting addition, in the absence of any incriminating evidence discovered during search(APB,90-92). 6.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee further pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cannot be relied upon in absence of other corroborative evidence Held, no. Whether where due disclosure of acquisition of properties had been made in course of regular assessments by assessee and those valuations had been accepted by income tax authorities as well as wealth tax authorities, Assessing Officer could not tax said amounts merely based upon DVO's report in absence of any material pointing to undervaluation in block assessment proceedings Held, yes. 6.3 The Counsel also relied on the case of 'CIT-I Vs. Berry Plastics (p.) Ltd', [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 296 (APB,93) wherein it was held that- "Section 69B, read with section 142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments [Investment in land and buildings] - Assessment year 2006-07 - During relevant year, assessee made some investment in land and building - Assessing Officer referred matter to DVO who valued land and building at a higher amount - In view of difference between disclosed investment of assessee in purchase of property and DVO's estimation of its fair market value, Assessing Officer added certain amount to taxable income of assessee under section 69B - Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellip;……...referred question of valuation of properties to DVO. On receipt of valuation report, Assessing Officer took into account difference in values as declared by assessee and as determined by DVO and added same to income of assessee as unexplained investments under section 69.The Appellate authorities deleted impugned addition made by Assessing Officer as no material was found in search and seizure operations to justify reference to DVO and the DVO's valuation was based on incomparable sales. Whether valuation arrived at by DVO was of no consequence Held, yes. Whether, therefore, appellate authorities were justified in deleting impugned addition made by Assessing Officer Held, yes [Para 6]" 10. Similarly, in the case of 'CIT Vs Nishi Mehra', reported as (2015) 56 taxman.com 89 (Del)(Supra)it was heldthat no addition can be made merely only on the basis of DVO's Report in the absence of any corroborative evidence. (APB, 86-89). No decision to the contrary has been cited before us. 11. In view of the above, we hold that the AO could not tax the said amounts merely based upon the DVO's report in the absence of any corroborative material to point out under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
