TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue has taken five grounds of appeal, but the grievance revolves around a single issue whereby it has pleaded that the ld.First Appellate Authority has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 5,03,200/- as against the addition of Rs. 24,59,822/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee in construction of industrial shed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the premises of Colourtex Group of Surat on 26.7.2006. The assessee is a member of this group and his premises were also searched on 26.7.2006. A notice under section 153A was issued upon the assessee. To this notice, the assessee has filed his return of income on 31.3.2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a RS.No.175, Paiki, Block No.G-2, SI Patel Compound, Bhestan, Surat. 2003-04 0 272100 272100 4. On the strength of these details, the ld.AO has made addition. 5. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under: "5. I have considered the facts and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has stated that in his books the declared cost is Rs. 18,00,000/- (including cost of land Rs. 4,40,000/-) whereas the assessing officer and as well as DVO has taken the declared cost at Rs. 30,70,933/- only (including cost of land). The AO is directed to verify and if found correct take the correct value of Rs. 18,00,000/-. Further, the DVO as well as Assessing officer has not considered the variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Guj) The ld.counsel for the assessee placed on record, the copies of the above decisions. 7. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. 8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before we embark upon an inquiry on the facts of the present case, we would like to take note of the finding recorded by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sadhna Gupta (supra) on the issue whether merely on the basis of the DVO's report, an addition can be made or not. The following finding is worth to note: "4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO is to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revenue that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the same vein. One such case being the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when this burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the DVO. 5. The law seems to be well settled that unless and until there is some other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s carried out in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The Assessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost of construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total of these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs. 1.22 lakhs which was the difference between the DVO's valuation and that of the valuation of die assessee's valuer, on the basis of which he filed the return. 9. Coming to the question of addition towards purchase of land, the Commission of Income-Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both have examined the issue on the basis of the material avaibblc on record. It is noted that the assessee had made no disclosure towards th....