TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substantiate more consideration has passed between the parties. 2 The learned CIT [A] has erred in ignoring the judgments of the Courts including jurisdictional High Court holding that addition for undisclosed investment in property purchased cannot be made purely on the basis of DVO report. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the valuation report on the basis of Circle rates and the deficiencies pointed out in the valuation report of the DVO. 4 That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 5 That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds at the time of heavy of appeal." 2. In Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the assessee has contended the issue of add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in terms of section 69B of the Act. The AO has further observed in this assessment order that the authorized representative of the assessee did not give any submission except the comment that the declared value of the property was correct, and therefore, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,43,26,000/- being the difference in the fair market value estimated by the DVO and the investment declared by the assessee as undisclosed investment and completed the assessment on 22nd December, 2008 under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short '(CIT(A)']. Before, the ld. CIT(A), the authorized representative of the assessee plead....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgments quoted by the assessee, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 6. At the time of hearing, the learned authorized representative( AR) of the assessee submitted that the there was no evidence or material in possession of the AO to come to the conclusion that the assessee has paid extra consideration over and above what was stated in the sale deeds. In support of this contentions the ld AR relied on the judgment of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485(Delhi). He further relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Construction Co. 167 Taxmann 171 (Delhi) and judgement of Mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt stated in the sale deed. In the instant case also the lower authorities had not brought any evidence or material which could conclude that the assessee has paid any extra consideration over and above what is stated in the sale deed. Further in the case of CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46, the jurisdictional High Court has decided as under:- "......................... It has noted that the Department has failed to collect any information or material to show that any consideration above and beyond the stated sale consideration had changed hands. It applied the dictum in KP Varghese Vs. ITO, 131, IT597 (SC) which lays the burden to establish the factum of the assessee having received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that purpose, the matter may be referred to the DVO also u/s 142A. But in the present case, there is no material available with the A.O. to show that the actual value of the shares purchased by the assessee is more than its declared value and hence, neither Section 69B nor Section 142A is attracted in the present case. 5. Reliance was placed by him on the tribunal decision-rendered in the case of DOT Vs Shri Vinod Singhal in I.T.A No. No. 3647 and 3648/Del/2008 dated 08.05.2009. It was submitted by him that the copy of this Tribunal order is available pages 124-127 of the paper book. It is also submitted that in the present case also, no evidence/document has been brought on record by the AO to suggest/establish that the assessee had mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee purchased a property for consideration of Rs. 9.50 Iacs which was valued by the A0 at Rs. 35.20 lacs on the basis of valuation report given by the DVO and made addition of this difference amount. Such addition was not found sustainable by the tribunal in that case because there was no adverse material available on record to establish/suggests that the assessee had made expenditure more than what was declared and disclosed by him as a consideration to purchase the said asset. Hence, by respectfully following this Tribunal decision, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the present case." 10. The judgements relied on by the assessee in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Construction Co. (supra) and CIT Vs. Kala....