2010 (8) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case are that the respondent-assessee had made investment in properties bearing No. 101, Ground Floor, Ban- gala Sahib Road, New Delhi and a flat on the first floor of that property. The respondent-assessee had duly registered the purchase deed with the Sub-Registrar-VI, New Delhi. The said investment was duly declared in the regular return filed by the respondent-assessee. It is pertinent to mention that the property purchased is a disputed property which is tenanted and whose mutation has not been allowed in the name of the respondent- assessee by the Land and Development Officer. However, the Assessing Officer (in short "AO") made an addition on account of undisclosed pay- ment having been made by the purchaser/respondent-assessee so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve been referred to the valuation cell under section 141A and in any case, the addition is not sustainable on the merits in view of this deficiency . . . 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Learned Departmental representative could not dispute the argument of the assessee that any incriminating material whatsoever was found during the course of search. There is no other corroborating evidence to substantiate the addition in respect of cost of acquisition of the assessee's property. The DVO and the Assessing Officer have not considered the vital aspect of the property being in possession of a tenant. Since the assessee's arguments remain uncontroverted, in our considered view, the argum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... valuation given by the DVO. (See K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi) and CIT v. Vinod Singhal (I. T. A. No. 482 of 2010 decided by this court on May 5, 2010). 5. In any event, the opinion of the DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon without the books of account being rejected-which has not been done in the present case. The Supreme Court in its order dated October 19, 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 6973 of 2009 (Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC)) has held as under (page 514) : "Delay condoned. Leave granted. By consent the matter is taken up for final hearing. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided ....