TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon order. The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in both the assessment years are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, 1962, they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief, the first common issue is whether addition on account of unexplained investment under sec. 69B of the Act can be made on the basis of estimated value determined by the DVO? 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. A search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 09.10.2009. In order to give logical end to the proceedings, learned Assessing Officer had issued notice under sec. 153A of the Act qua six preceding assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hased property at E-32, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi for which the assessee has shown consideration of Rs. 2,50,00,000. The matter was referred to the District Valuation Officer u/s. 142A for estimating the value of investment on purchase of property at E-32, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi vide this office letter F.No.ACIT/CC-142A/GZB/2011-12/ dated 03.11.2011. The DVO has sent his valuation report vide letter DVO/ND/I.T10/142A/2011- 12/131 dated 21.12.2011. In this report, the DVO has valued the above property at Rs. 14,24,66,112 as against Rs. 2,50,00,000 shown by the assessee. The assessee was requested to give its comments on the valuation who vide letter dated has submitted as under: x x x x x 6. The above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Addition Rs. 11,74,66,112/-" A.Y. 2007-08: "Addition in respect of Investment in properties: 5. During the year under consideration the assessee has made an investment in CC-24, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The matter was referred to the DVO foe estimating the value of investment in the property nameloy Hotel Blue Stone, CC-24, Kalkaji, New Delhi vide this office letter F.No.ACIT/CC/142A/GZB/2011-12/388 dated 03.11.2011. The DVO has given his report vide letter F. No. DVO/ND/I.T11/2011-12/134 dated 23.12.2011. The DVO has valued the investment of Rs. 5,90,34,000 as against Rs. 3,50,00,000 shown by the assessee. The assessee was requested to explain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee i.e. Rs. 5,90,34,000, Rs. 3,50,00,000 = Rs. 2,40,34,000 is added to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Addition Rs. 2,40,34,000" 4. On appeal, Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT reported in 328 ITR 513. Learned CIT(Appeals) has followed this decision. He emphasized that during the course of search, no material was found which indicates that assessee has made unexplained investment in the purchase of the property. The Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ronted the assessee, but he has simply observed that assessee failed to explain the investment, therefore, he made a reference to the DVO. He has not rejected the book results of the assessee by pointing out defects. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagam Cinema, has considered this aspect. It is a very short judgment and direct on the issue in hands. It reads as under: 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided the matter rightly in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sec. 80IC of the Act and while framing the assessment order in the case of relax Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Assessing Officer held that Relax Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. should pay royalty @ 1% of net profit to the assessee for using its trade mark. Thus, the profit of Relax Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on which sec. 80IC was to be granted, has been reduced by a sum of Rs. 2,16,789 and Rs. 1,87,927 in assessment years 2003-04 and 2007-08 respectively. In the case of assessee, ld Assessing Officer has added these amounts on protective basis on the ground that the assessee ought to have received royalty. In the case of Relax Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted this addition in assessment year 2003-04, and according to the ....