2000 (10) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... very idea had no evidentiary value?" The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are that by an order dated October 29, 1987, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment of the respondent under section 143(1) on a total income of Rs. 15,320 but in pursuance of a search and seizure operartion conducted at the business premises of the firm, Mohar Singh Ishwar Dayal, Ballabgarh, and the residential premises of Shri Vidya Rattan, he made an addition of Rs. 1,41,4000 by treating the purchase of the plot in the name of the assessee's minor son as unexplained investment. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and his order was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the existing market price. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer estimated the market value of the plot Rs. 1,76,400 and after deducting the investment of Rs. 55,000, shown by the assessee, added the difference of Rs. 1,41,400 as unexplained investment in the plot. (iii) An identical addition was made in the hands of Shri Vidya Rattan, father of the assessee, in the assessment year 1987 88. In fact, the aforesaid addition in the hands of the assessee has been made on protective basis as the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Vidya Rattan. In my appellate order dated June 26, 1991, in Appeal No. 103 of 1991-92 for the assessment year 1987-88 in the case of Shri Vidya Rattan, father of the assessee, the issue of unexplained in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessees involved, have purchased the plots for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/Rs. 45,000 as recorded in the sale deeds. The Revenue claims that the total investment made is at Rs. 3,66,400 and there is unexplained investment of Rs. 2,86,400 but as would be seen from the facts given, there is no material evidence to establish that the assessee made investment of Rs. 2,86,400 over and above that recorded in the sale deeds at Rs. 80,000. In the absence of any such evidence, and the investment having been proved, no addition could be made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act. This view is fully supported by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessees have laid cogent evidence by way of receipts and copies of sale de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X