2016 (3) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeal Allowed Due to Lack of Incriminating Evidence

Mr. Rajkumar Aswani Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Pune

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of incriminating material during the search and the reliance on DVO reports without ... Addition u/s. 69B - unexplained investment in residential bungalows - Held that:- Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account in the case of assessee though the Assessing Officer notes that the cost of construction is reflected in the books of account. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bajranglal Bansal reported (2010 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT) for the proposition that the opinion of the DVO per se was not an information and could not be relied upon without books of account, being rejected. Since the books of account had not been rejected in the present case and following the said principle, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in this regard and we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Appeal against addition of unexplained investment in residential properties under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of &8377; 12,25,142/- and &8377; 69,32,586/- under section 69B of the Act- The assessee's appeal contested the addition of amounts under section 69B for unexplained investment in residential properties.- The Assessing Officer relied on DVO valuation reports to add the amounts as unexplained investments.- The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision based on the search conducted by the Department, considering the books unreliable due to suppression of transactions.- The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search, questioning the basis for the addition.- The Authorized Representative cited a Karnataka High Court case to argue against additions solely based on DVO reports.- The Tribunal noted that the construction costs were debited in the books, and no seized material indicated suppressed costs, supporting the assessee's argument.- Referring to a Delhi High Court case, the Tribunal held that without rejecting the books of account, reliance on DVO reports alone was not justified.- Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions, allowing the assessee's appeal.Issue 2: Timing of additions- The Tribunal highlighted that the properties were constructed before the assessment year under consideration, questioning the timing of the additions.- Noting that no documents found during the search related to the properties' costs, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence for the additions.- Citing the Karnataka High Court case, the Tribunal reiterated that additions based solely on DVO reports without seized material were unwarranted.- The Tribunal, based on these findings, reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and directed deletion of the additions.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of incriminating material during the search and the reliance on DVO reports without rejecting the books of account. The additions under section 69B were deemed unjustified, leading to their deletion by the Tribunal.