Understated sale consideration requires independent proof; comparative pricing alone was insufficient, and unexamined evidence led to remand.

An addition for alleged suppression of flat sale consideration could not stand on a mere comparison with one higher-priced transaction; the Revenue had to independently establish understatement on the facts of the other sales. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered a specific explanation based on the flat's special features and restrictive sale terms, and that supporting additional evidence had not been examined in assessment. The addition was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh examination of the evidence and completion of assessment after giving the assessee due opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged suppressed sale consideration from the sale of flats was sustainable, and whether the additional evidence produced by the assessee required examination.

Analysis: The assessee explained the price difference on the basis of the special circumstances attending the sale of one flat, including the purchaser's specific requirements, higher elevation, better view, and restrictive terms in the agreement. The record showed that the Assessing Officer proceeded mainly on the premise that one flat had fetched a higher price, without independently establishing understatement in the sales of the other flats. The Tribunal also noted that additional evidence had been filed showing the special features of the transaction, but this evidence had not been examined in assessment. In these circumstances, the addition could not be sustained merely on a comparative price basis without proper inquiry into the evidence and the actual facts of sale.

Conclusion: The addition was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the additional evidence and completion of assessment in accordance with law, after giving the assessee due opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for alleged understatement of sale consideration cannot be sustained merely because one comparable transaction fetched a higher price; the Revenue must independently establish understatement, and material additional evidence bearing on the genuineness of the transaction must be examined before making the addition.

---