2015 (11) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../97 and 5180/Del/97 for the Assessment Year ("AY") 1994-95. 2. The three Assessees are brothers. They purchased a farm house at Asola in Delhi and the purchase price recorded in the books of accounts was Rs. 8,40,000. On 12th October 1994, a search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of Mr. R.S. Bedi and a paper was seized which had some notings purportedly disclosing the investment made in a farm to the extent of Rs. 76 lakhs. According to the Revenue when the said Assessee was confronted with the said piece of paper, he was unable to explain the details given therein. A presumption was then raised regarding ownership and correctness of the said paper. 3. In the assessment order dated 27th March 1997, the AO note....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the basis of the said document, the value taken by Department would have been 76 lacs as disclosed in the document and Rs. 67,47,800" and not the amount as estimated by the DVO. It was submitted that "as the document is not the basis of the addition under Section 69B, no note of the arguments advanced by the learned AR on dump document should be taken." In para 24 of the impugned order the ITAT held that the basis of the addition was not the said "dump" document but the report of the DVO which was duly supplied to the Assessees after seeking their comments. The ITAT proceeded to hold that the Revenue had discharged the onus by confronting the Assessees with the report of the DVO and it was for the Assessees to have rebutted the said evid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that the Revenue may have for sustaining such addition. 10. In the facts of the present case it is plain that the seized document, which raised the suspicion of the Revenue about a possible undisclosed investment made by the Assessees, did not form the basis for the additions. The statement made by the DR before the ITAT, which was accepted by the ITAT, makes it clear that the addition was sought to be sustained only on the basis of the report of the DVO. 11. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessees, drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) and sub....