TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant year a property, B-79, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 34 lac. The AO opined that the declared purchase price was far less than its fair market value. A reference was made to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property. Such value was determined at Rs. 83.15 lac. This led to the making of an addition of Rs. 49.15 lac (Rs.83.15 lac minus Rs. 34 lac) u/s 69B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) ordered for the deletion of the addition, against which the Revenue is aggrieved before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the extant addition was made by the AO u/s 69B of the Act. The relevant part of this section stipulates that: 'Where in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into a finding. Absent affirmative evidence, what remains is a mere supposition of unexplained investment etc., which cannot take the place of a finding of the AO towards unexplained investment. 5. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the only so called evidence in the hands of the AO for the assessee having made investment of Rs. 49.15 lac outside the books of account, is a report of the DVO. There is hardly any need to accentuate that a Valuer's report is nothing but an estimate of cost of construction. There can be several factors affecting valuation or the price finally bargained. Valuation is not a fool-proof scientific tool of the measurement of the cost of construction. Ordinarily, there arises difference in two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been reiterated in CIT vs. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC). In this case, their Lordships have laid down that no addition can be made unless there is evidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document, was received. In the light of the above decisions, it is manifest that no addition can be made unless the Revenue proves understatement of consideration with some cogent evidence, apart from a mere estimate of the cost of valuation. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in order to tap the cases of such understatement of consideration yielding less than the due collection of tax, the legislature stepped in by inserting section 50C which is a 'Special provision for full value of consideration i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....despite it being at variance with the scope of the enactment. It is trite law that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is intended. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) considered the scope of a deeming provision and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. In CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd.(1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) the same view has been reiterated by holding that the "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field." 9. Coming back to our context, we find that section 50C is a deeming provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the head 'Income from other sources' and ; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, shall be considered as income under the head 'Income from other sources'. 11. A conjoint reading of sections 50C and 56(2)(vii) makes it vivid that whereas 'stamp value' has been substituted with the 'full value of consideration' in case the later is less than the former in the hands of the seller by virtue of section 50C, the substitution of the 'stamp value' with the 'actual purchase price, in excess of Rs. 50,000/-' has been made effective in the hands of the buyer only where any immovable property is....