TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on account of the unexplained investment in the immoveable properties? B. Whether ITAT was correct in the eyes of law in quashing the order passed by the assessing officer adopting the Fair Market Value as the sale consideration of the property when he had brought on record sufficient reasons to show cause that there was under statements of sale consideration by the assessee? C. Whether the impugned order passed by the ITAT is perverse both in facts and law?" 2. The assessee, who is the respondent in this appeal, is a Hindu Undivided Family. There was a search under Section 132 of the Act on 9.12.2003 in the residential/business premises and the related persons/concerns of Begum Gutka group of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,412/- under the head "income from other sources" as the unexplained investment made in rent-yielding properties. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and contended that there was no evidence to show that it had in fact paid anything more than the price declared by it for the properties, that the conclusion of the assessing officer to the contrary was based purely on surmises and conjectures and not on any cogent material, that even the search did not yield any material or evidence to show any undisclosed investment by the assessee. It was argued that at any rate the value based on rent capitalization method as prescribed in the Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act was only a notional figure of fair market value of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The result was that in respect of flat Nos.3 and 9, Palm Court, the CIT(Appeals) sustained an addition of Rs. 52,90,000/- and in respect of flat Nos.303 and 309, Palm Court he sustained an addition of Rs. 42,90,000/-. 7. So far as the property bearing No.M-64, G.K.-II is concerned, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the price of Rs. 498.57 per sq.ft declared by the assessee was abnormally low and could not by any standards be considered as reasonable compared to the market value of the property. He noted that the property was located in a commercial places and commanded a substantial value in the open market and "merely on the ground that no evidences found during search as regards the real value of investment, could not make th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s decision in the case of Shri Dinesh Jain and in the case of Smt. Lata Jain had estimated the value of the property. The AO had not brought on record any material to suggest that the value shown in the conveyance deeds was lower than the amount passed on by the assessee to the sellers. ITAT, Delhi Bench "B" in the case of Shri Dinesh Jain and Smt. Lata Jain in consolidated order dated 30th September, 2009 in ITA No.3422 (Del) of 2008 etc. has deleted the similar additions by observing, as under :- "5. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record, we found that on the basis of sale deed found during the course of search ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suspicions. In the latest case of CU vs. Shakuntala Devi (ITA No.345/2007), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held "it may be relevant to note that a division bench of the court comprising Dr. Arijit Prasayath and Justice D.K.Jain, as their lordships then were retreated that there must be a finding of the revenue that the assessee had received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed, following the ratio of K.P.Verghese (supra). K P Verghese (supra) has also been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Godavari Corporation Limited 200 ITR 567. The division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrpal 294 ITR 143 observed that by referring to the report of valuation officer in the absence of aiiy(s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the orders of the Tribunal passed on similar lines was called in question before this Court in ITA Nos.1667/2010, 85/2011 (CIT Vs. DINESH JAIN HUF), 1800/2010, 1803/2010, ITA 1805/2010, 1807/2010, 1809/2010, 1811/2010, 1812/2010, 1813/2010, 1967/2010, 1972/2010 ( CIT Vs. LATA JAIN), 1815/2010, 1816/2010, 1817/2010, 1818/2010, 1819/2010, 1968/2010, 1969/2010, 1970/2010, 1971/2010 (CIT Vs. DINESH JAIN). This Court in its order dated 28.9.2012 held that (a) Section 69B in terms requires the assessing officer to first prove that the assessee has actually expended an amount which he has not fully recorded in his books of account; (b) there has to be a finding that such amount was actually paid by the assessee over and above the declared consi....