2022 (7) TMI 1216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A. No. 9201/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. C1T (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in not treating the reference made by the AO to the DVO as valid and deleting the penalty amounting of Rs.57,38,358/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case that there is actual loss of revenue. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." C. O. No. 5/Del/2020 "1. That the learned Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n received by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 1,76,54,600/- to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration as per Section 43CA of the Act. Consequent to the assessment order dated 04/06/2018, the penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and vide order dated 30/11/2018 an order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been passed by imposing penalty of Rs. 57,38,358/-. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30/11/2018, the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 31/10/2019 allowed the Appeal filed by the assessee by deleting the order of imposition of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) dated 31/10/2019, the Department is in appeal before us on the groun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer (DVO) who determined the market value at Rs. 22,93,71,110/- as against the sale value declared by the appellant at Rs. 21,17,16,500/- resulting into difference of Rs. 1,76,54,600/-. This difference amounts to 8.34% of the sale value declared by the appellant It is also noticed that the DVO has worked out the difference in respect of 6 properties only. Undisputedly, there is neither any evidence nor even the allegation that the appellant had received money over and above the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deeds and the addition had been made on the basis of legal fiction created by section 43CA". 8. In the case of CIT Vs. Madan Theaters Ltd.(2013) 44 taxmann.com 382 (Cal), it has been held that where actual amount receive do....