TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssigning any reason therefor? 2. As a very short and limited question arises for consideration, we are not referring to the factual matrix in detail but notice that the appellants assessees had jointly purchased along with Vibha Jain, property situated at XI/4834/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi for consideration of Rs. 16 lcas. The individual shares of Vikas Exports, Deepika Jain and Vibha Jain were 50%, 25% and 25% respectively (counsel for the parties are not able to state what had happened in the case of Vibha Jain but no appeal has been preferred in the case of Vibha Jain). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made reference under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) to the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... difference in valuation Rs. 2,23,725/- i.e. Rs. 6,23,725/- - Rs. 4,00,000/- and the remaining 50% i.e. 1,11,863/- is added to the Income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act." 5. The appellants assessees, however, succeeded before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the said addition. He observed that the Departmental Valuation Officer had gone on hypothetical basis and had made his assessment on the basis of possibility of construction of basement and thereby raised the valuation by 25%. The building was 50 years old but the Departmental Valuation Officer had not taken correct depreciation which should have been at least 50% and not 22.5%. Further, the comparable rates were taken of properties which were 3 side open propert....