2018 (6) TMI 1606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddition of Rs. 1,88,02,500/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act. 1.2 The facts of the case of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Virjibhai Kalyanbhai Kukadia (2012) 138 ITD 255 as relied by the CIT(A) are different from the facts of the present case. 1.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not considering the Jantry value as fixed by the Registrar." 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. 4. There is no dispute that the impugned addition is made solely on the basis of market value of land, as adopted by the sub-registrar, as true value of purchase of land. Learned Representatives fairly agree that this issue is now covere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2) If it is found that the amount expended on making such investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in that behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee, and (3) Either the assessee offers no explanation about such extra amount or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. 9. The above conditions are cumulative. If all these circumstances exist, the excess amount may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year in which the said investment was made or the assessee became the owner of bullion etc. 10. The factual position is that during the year the assessee had acquired land. It has been submitted by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 12. In the case of Naresh Khattar (HUF) (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that to invoke the provisions of Sec.69B, the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the real investment exceeds the investment shown in the books of accounts of the assessee. 13. In the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana (supra) (Raj.) the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: "10. It is true that merely on the basis of fair market value no addition can be made u/s. 69B of the Act, 1961, but on the basis of sufficient material on record some reasonable inference can be drawn that petitioner has invested more amount than the shown in account books, then only the addition u/s. 69B can be made. The burden is on the Revenue to....