2013 (9) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aser Dinesh Kumar Agarwal of property No. C-15, Lawrence Road Industrial Area vide documents executed on 3rd January, 2005. The total sale consideration disclosed by the two assessees was Rs.64,32,800/-. For the sake of completeness, we record that the Assessment Year in question in the two appeals is 2005-06. 2. By order dated 16th March, 2012, the following substantial questions of law were framed in the case of M/s Ashoka Ice and Cold Storage:-        "(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of understatement of sale consideration?        (ii) W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he documents dated 3rd January, 2005, i.e., Rs.1,06,12,000/- should be treated as unexplained payment and receipt. He has mentioned that Rs.15,17,000/- in cash were found and seized from Seema Kuthiala wife of Sumant Kuthiala, partners of M/s Ashoka Ice and Cold Storage. Seema Kuthiala had 18.75% share in this concern. 6. The aforesaid addition under Section 69B was deleted by the first appellate authority, which view has been affirmed by the tribunal. They have referred to the DVO report and pointed out several flaws in the same. DVO, for the purpose of valuation, had taken the market price of land in Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi in 1994 and had referred to 1994 DDA rate of land fixed for Lawrence Road Industrial Area. He came to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s order has mentioned that as per the seized document, value of the land as on 22nd June, 1999 was Rs.1,26,30,730/- and the cost of construction was Rs.6,28,237/-. In the remand report dated 8th August, 2007 reference is made to this document, i.e., valuation report of K.R. Sharma dated 22nd June, 1999. 9. We are rather surprised that the tribunal did not take notice of this document and the CIT (Appeals) has mentioned this document and the contention of the Revenue, but did not deal with the same and examine the same while accepting the appeal. We are also surprised that the Assessing Officer in the two assessment years did not mention and refer to this document. 10. This document, i.e., valuation report dated 22nd June, 1999 is also....