9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had referred the issue of market value of the property in question u/s 142A - as per Section 142A such reference can be made to ascertain the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article referred to in section 69A or Section 69B of the Act. There is conspicuous exclusion of Section 69C. In the present case, reference u/s 142A was not made regarding ascertaining the correct market value of the investment in property. But, it was in fact for the purpose of ascertaining expenditure which the assessee made on the purchases. We find merit into the contention of the assessee that the reference to DVO u/s 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arma, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi, dated 22.02.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 14,79,300 albeit under section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further erred in sustaining Section 69B of the Act for Section 69C of the Act applied by the Assessing officer while making the impugned addition. 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not providing opportunity to the company when substituting section 69B of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural land in question to the Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO after considering the facts and circumstances estimated the value of the land less than 10% of the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to treat the difference of ₹ 14,79,300/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the authorities below are unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of law. He submitted that in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Sardari Lal Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) 261 ITR 664. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. CIT (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 64 (All) to buttress the contention that the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 69B when the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer in the assessment order has stated addition regarding unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Revenue has not brought on record that mentioning of Section 69C was on account of any typographical error. It is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had referred the issue of market value of the property in question u/s 142A of the Act. However, as per Section 142A such reference can be made to ascertain the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article referred to in section 69A or Section 69B of the Act. There is conspicuous exclusion of Section 69C. In the present case, reference u/s 142A was not made reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned CIT(Appeals) could not have treated the addition made u/s 69C as the addition made u/s 69B and the same is contrary to the spirit of the Act. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi high Court, rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd. (supra), has held that from the reading of sub-section (1) of Section 142A, it is clear that legislature referred to the provisions of Section 69, 69A and 69B but specifically excluded 69C. The principle of casus omissus becomes applicable in a situation like this. What is not included by legislature and rather specifically excluded, cannot be interpreted by the Court through the process of interpretation. The only remedy is to amend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
