Revenue appeal dismissed as unexplained investment addition based solely on valuer's report lacks incriminating material

The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging deletion of unexplained investment addition for factory construction. The AO had made additions based solely on a private registered valuer's report obtained during search proceedings without any incriminating material or corroborative evidence. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, following Delhi HC precedent in CIT v. Nishi Mehra, which held that additions cannot be made purely on valuation reports absent supporting incriminating material pointing to property under-valuation. The revenue failed to provide contrary judicial precedent to support their position.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the addition based on the valuation report of a private registered valuer.
2. Validity of the approval granted by the Additional CIT u/s 153D.
3. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Legality of the addition based on the valuation report of a private registered valuer

The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,39,76,229/- made on account of unexplained investment for the construction of factory premises. The assessee argued that the addition was based solely on a valuation report from a private registered valuer obtained during the search, without following the statutory provisions u/s 142A and 55A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating documents were found during the search, and the valuation report was prepared hastily within a day without consulting the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, emphasizing that any addition based solely on a private valuer's report, without corroborative evidence, is not sustainable.

Issue 2: Validity of the approval granted by the Additional CIT u/s 153D

The assessee contended that the approval granted by the Additional CIT u/s 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was granted on the same day. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO, which held that approval granted on the same day does not necessarily indicate non-application of mind. The Tribunal found no evidence of non-application of mind by the Additional CIT and dismissed the assessee's ground on this issue.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue

The assessee argued that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the reference to the private valuer was without authority of law. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the Revenue failed to dispute the CIT(A)'s decision on the illegality of the private valuer's report. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as frivolous and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections, confirming that the addition based on the private valuer's report was not justified and that the approval u/s 153D was valid. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions and proper application of mind in the approval process.

---