9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvassed before us by learned counsel for the Revenue. The first is with regard to the deletion by the ITAT of an addition of Rupees 1,79,435/-, allegedly being unexplained deposits in the Accounts of the Assessee/Respondent. According to the Assessee, she had purchased two plots of land, one of which was sold in the year 1989 and the second in January, 1991. It is the second plot with which we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the conclusion. 3. The second question pertains to the valuation of certain properties, of which the relevant documents were found in the course of a Search. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rupees 4,56,450/- by treating the difference between the valuation of the Assessee and that carried out at his behest. The ITAT has discussed the valuation in respect of each of the propertie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rupees 2,00,000/- also, being alleged as unexplained deposits in the bank account of the Assessee. It is uncontrovertable that this amount had been shown in the Return for Assessment Year 1996-1997, that is, prior to the issuance of notice under Section 158BC. The version of the Assessee is that the plot was purchased on 16.12.1991 for Rupees 1,95,000/-. According to learned counsel for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deeds, following Varghese. Varghese had also been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in CIT vs Godavari Corporation Ltd., (1993) 200 ITR 567(SC). The Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal, (2007) 294 ITR 143 referred to the report of a Valuation Officer in the absence of any incriminating docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
