TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64/- and Rs.87,73,126/- respectively. A search operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were carried out at various residential and business premises of these persons on 04.10.12007. 3. The grounds of appeal in all these three appeals are common except the difference in the amount. Therefore, the grounds in ITA No.5302/Del/2010 is reproduced herein :- "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,17,09,800/- being difference of long term capital gain on sale of unquoted equity shares of M/s Superior Builders Ltd. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in law in not removing the procedural shortcoming of the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) has ignored the various decisions of the Apex Court including Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) which cast a legal obligation on the CIT (A) to remove procedural defects and not grant relief on such grounds. 3. The CIT (A) has erred in law in insisting upon corroborative evidence during search & seizure operations while framing assessments under Section 153A of the Act. 4. On t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not represent the market value on the date of transfer. She also submitted that the property was fetching handsome rent of Rs.55 lacs per month and in such a situation, the property must have been sold at a high market value. It cannot be sold at such low value. She also relied on the decision of ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of G. Arinudham vs. ACIT - 60 TTJ 49 for the proposition that Assessing Officer can rely on such valuation report when it has been prepared by qualified engineer for LIC and loan advanced by LIC on that basis. She also relied on the decision of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More - 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT - 214 ITR 801 (SC) for the proposition that the matter needs to be considered in the light of human probabilities and the surrounding circumstances and depending upon these factors the rule of apparent is real may be overlooked if the surrounding circumstances so suggest. She finally pleaded to set aside the order of the CIT (A). 5. While pleading on behalf of the assessee ld. AR submitted that all these three assessees are individuals. All these assessees were holding equity shares of M/s. Superior Builders Limited during the financial year 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granting the loan and the other was prepared on behalf of Mittal Group for valuing the market value. The valuer has also stated that there are two methods available for valuation of property, i.e. rent capitalization method and return on investment method. The valuation report dated 14.11.2009 is made for the purpose of ascertaining market value. The land is valued by taking circle rate at Rs.6,900/- per sq. meter. These were notified rate by NODIA Authority for the relevant period. The cost of construction has been arrive at Rs.13,78,19,402/-. As per company's balance sheet, the amount was Rs.13,12,51,142/-. Ld. AR further submitted that neither copy of the valuation reports nor the copy of the statement of the valuer were confronted with assessee during the assessment proceedings. Further the ld. AR also submitted that to ascertain the fair market value of the capital asset/shares/property, the Assessing Officer could have referred to District Valuation Officer u/s 55A instead of relying on the valuation report prepare for sanctioning the bank loan on behest of the bank. The ld. AR further submitted that Chapter IV-E, Sections 45 to 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the valuation adopted by assessee at Rs.67.50 per share was most realistic valuation and it reflects the market value of assets on the date of transfer. The burden of proof that there was under-statement of capital gain is on the Assessing Officer as he had made such allegations. For this proposition, the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Vergese vs. ITO - 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT vs. Shivkami Co. P. Ltd. - 159 ITR 71 (SC), CIT vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. - 200 ITR 567 (SC) and Navin Kumar Gaulecha vs. ITO - 1 SOT 167 (ITAT, Delhi). Ld. AR submitted that no addition can be made only on the basis of valuation report unless supporting incriminating documents are found during the search. For this proposition, ld. AR relied on the decision of Dinesh Jain vs. CIT - 34 SOT 444 (ITAT, Delhi), Manoj Kumar Soni vs. ACIT - 212 Taxman 72 (ITAT, Delhi), CIT vs. Prem Nath Nagpal - 214 CTR 51 (Delhi HC), CIT vs. Ashok Khetarpal - 294 ITR 143 (Delhi HC). Ld. AR also submitted that u/s 48 of the Income-tax Act, the concept was of "full value of consideration" and this cannot be construed as market value. It can be only the price bargained for by the parties to t....