AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce. 2. The assessee's in these appeals raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law and on facts. 2. That on die facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,49,500/- made by the Lei. AO being difference between the value of property shown in the safe deed and fair market value determined by the District Valuation Officer Delhi ("DVO") on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the difference between the safe consideration in sale deed and the Valuation as per DVO report is insignificant and does not warrant any addition as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2012]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led his return of income on 07.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 1,92,51,750/-. During the AY 2020-21 the assessee had purchased residential building along with Shri Parveen Gupta bearing property no. BP-22, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total sale consideration of Rs. 9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.09.2019 and the assessee had 50% share in it. On 12.02.2021 a search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee and the assessment for the impugned assessment year was completed on 09.05.2022 u/s 153A read with section 143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 8,49,500/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of difference between the value of property shown in the sale deed and fair market value as determined by the DVO as narrated in the assessment order at pages 3 & 4. As stated in the assessment order the details of the property i.e. circle rate, sale consideration, DVO valuation and the difference between DVO and sale consideration are as under: Property Description Circle Rate/Stamp Duty Value Total Sales Consideration (A) Value determined by the DVO (B) Addition made by the Ld.AO being difference between column (A) & (B) BP-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 61 (Delhi)-para 5 iii. Anand Banwarilal Adhukia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 301 - Gujarat HC-para 10 to 13 iv. Me & Mummy Hospital vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 45 taxmann.com 248 - Gujarat HC - para 10, 15 to 17 v. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Smt. Usha Rani Talla (ITA no.5698/Del/2014) para 10.06, 10.9" 5. Referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition for insignificant difference between the sale value and the valuation report of the DVO can be made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel submitted that the difference between the sale consideration and the valuation report was merely Rs. 16,99,000/- (10,06,99,100 - 9,90,00,000) i.e., 1.71% which is a very minor variation. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2012) (25 taxmann.com 210). Referring to this decision Ld. Counsel stated that the Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for making an addition. Placing reliance on the following judgments Ld. Counsel submitted that in all these judgments it has been held 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 was discharged by the Revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the DVO. DVO report without any other material cannot form basis of making addition. Value of a property estimated by the DVO or the registered value can never be conclusive of the price finally bargained: - i. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597(SC) -para 18 ii. CIT v. Sadhna Gupta [2013:DHC:1225-DB] para 4 and 5 iii. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [(2011) 338 ITR 485] -para 8 iv. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Suraj Devi [(2010) 328 ITR 604] -para 4, 7 v. CIT v. Lahsa Construction (P.) Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) -para 5,6 vi. CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013] 351 ITR 20 (Delhi) -para 5 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... market value of the land was very high as compared to the value shown in the sale deed. Sh Praveen Gupta and Sh Gautam Gupta has sold property BP-22 (comprising of basement Floor, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor), West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs. 9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.06.2019.5in this property, the assessee had total 50% share and this property was jointly sold by the assessee. The value of the property on which it was sold by the assessee was less than that of the market value for this reasons the above property was referred to the DVO on 17.03.2022 for valuation u/s 142A of the Income Tax Act to determine the fair market value as on date of sale." It is submitted that thereafter on 18.05.2022, the Ld. AO issued a corrigendum stating as follows: "In para 6 at page no. 2 of the said order, it has been noticed that there is a typographical error as "sold". Here it is mentioned that the property has been purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the word "sold" mentioned of the said order may be read as "purchased" in the said order of the para. Rest of the contents of the order shall remain unchanged." Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As could be seen from the above, the AO made a reference to the DVO for the valuation of the property on the premise that the assessee had sold a property in Delhi and as per information available with the Department the market value of the land was very high as compared to the value shown in the sale deed. The AO stated that the assessee's namely Shri Gautam Gupta and Shri Parveen Gupta had sold property BP-22 (comprising of basement floor, ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor) West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs. 9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 24.06.2019. Therefore, the AO was of the view that since the value of the property which was sold by the assessee's was less than the market value and for this reason the property was referred to DVO for determining the fair market value as on the date of sale. Therefore, the whole premise on which the AO referred the valuation to the DVO is that the assessee's sold the property for less than market value. As a matter of fact the assessee's during the year under consideration never sold any property and on the other hand, they have jointly purchased the property for consideration over and above the circle rate/stam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ructure P. Ltd. [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3928] wherein the following was observed: "16. In view of the above, it is evident that the valuation in this case was uncritically accepted by the AO. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86%. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved. Besides, the fact that the AO did not examine the variations, with specific reference to any items tare that were unreasonable, or showed wide variation, these differences can also be put down to differing perceptions, and the practice adopted by the concerned business activity. 17. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the variation in valuation, in this case between what was disclosed by the assessee and what was indicated by the DVO is not significant, this court is of opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed." 3. Undisputedly, the variation between the valuation as relied upon by the assessee and th....