ITO,Ward-10(1), New Delhi V. Govindajee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1204/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1633 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Search and seizure; Tangible material; Fair market value; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Documents seized; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69; 148; 69B; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1204/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi. Vs Govindajee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.562, Gadaipur village, Main Gadaipur Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi.- 110 074. PAN: AAECG1664P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA; and Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.03.2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.1226/22-23 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated ITA No.1204/Del/2023 2 30.09.2021 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the ITO, Ward 10(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The Ld. DR has defended the order of AO, and took the bench across all the relevant findings of AO and submitted that CIT(A) has failed to take not of detailed investigation division report which spells out the modus operandi to buy property by paying cash component separately above the consideration. He relied the remand report and submitted that CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the same in correct perspective. 4. The brief facts of the case are that as against the declared loss of Rs.24,685/- as per ITR for the year under consideration, the appellant was assessed u/s 153C/143(3) vide order dated 13.12.2016 accepting the said returned loss. Meanwhile, on 27.07.2016, a search was conducted at the premises of one Kartar Singh Group and its associates, wherein an excel sheet was found from the premises of Shri Kartar Singh. The AO has noted that information based on the findings of that search was received vide letter dated 29.3.2019 from ACIT, CC-30, New Delhi containing details of undisclosed investment/purchase of property made by the assessee company for the year under consideration and alleging that the appellant has made an unexplained investment to the tune of Rs.215,91,54,200/- for the purchase of land at Village Satbari, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. As a consequence the case of the assessee was ITA No.1204/Del/2023 3 reopened on 30.03.2019 and assessment order u/s 147/153C/143(3) was passed on 30.09.2021 making the addition of Rs.215,91,54,200/-. The said addition was made on the premises that the assessee had purchased the impugned land measuring 16 bighas and nine biswas viz., 16588.18 sq. yard on 08.12.2011 and the value of the said property considering the average market value as per Appraisal Report was Rs.223,94,04,300/- at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per sq. yard and since the assessee had shown the purchase value of the said land at Rs.8,02,50,100/- it was held that it had made an unaccounted investment of Rs.2,15,91,54,200/-. Subsequently, vide application u/s 154, the assessee approached the AO stating that the area of land was mistakenly taken at 16 bighas and 9 biswas instead of the actual land area of 6 bighas and 17 biswas or 6898 sq. yards. On considering the mistake apparent from record the AO vide u/s 154 dated 06.01.2023 has reduced the addition to Rs.85,22,67,800/- by adopting the area of property as 6907.54 sq. yards and rate of property at Rs.1,35,000/- per sq. yards. 5. In the impugned order of CIT(A), as first appellate authority, the CIT(A) observes that in assessment order, at paras 6 and 6.1, the AO has noted that on verification it is seen that investigation wing, Delhi found credible evidences and details during the search & seizure operation carried out on Kartar Singh Group wherein certain documentary evidences were seized, which reflect the market price of various properties purchased by Shri Sumit Gupta and the companies controlled by him including the assessee. It is further stated that the ITA No.1204/Del/2023 4 actual market rates for such properties have been derived by the Investigation Wing on the basis of price mentioned in the seized documents, and as per findings of the Investigation Wing, the average minimum price per sq. yd. for computation of actual investment in plot in Satbari area has been mentioned as Rs.1,35,000 per sq. yd by the Investigation Wing, Income Tax Department, Delhi after post search enquiry and due verification. It was further noted by the AO that the copy of findings of the Investigation wing has been provided to the assessee, but the assessee has not submitted any cogent and vital rebuttal regarding the fair market price, as mentioned in the findings of the Investigation Wing, of plot situated at Satbari area with any supporting document. It is further mentioned by the AO that during the course of search and seizure operation and post search investigation, Sh. Sumit Gupta, Director of assessee company, has mentioned in statement under oath that huge cash was paid for sale/purchase of the properties. Further not only this Mr. Sumit Gupta has also submitted the list of the properties and based on the documents, the Investigation Wing has derived the market rates of the properties. The AO has also noted that it is an open secret that the actual market rates are much higher than the circle rate of land specially of agriculture land in Delhi and that during the course of Search and Seizure operation an excel sheet was found from the premises of Sh. Kartar Singh and the same was containing the market price as well as the price as mentioned in the documents. In most of the transactions it is seen that the price recorded in the documents is just a small fraction of the actual market price of ITA No.1204/Del/2023 5 the land. The circle rate in entire Delhi for agriculture land is only kept at a very low rate whereas most of the agriculture land is sold for farm houses and at a huge consideration which is paid in cash and only a small part of the consideration which is as per circle rate or slightly above the circle rate is paid in cheque which has happened in the case of assessee also. Thus, as per the AO, the assessee's contention is totally devoid of merits that it has purchased the land at above the circle rate because the circle rate is for agriculture land whereas the assessee is in the business of developing farm houses and the same land is never used for agriculture purposes. Not only this, Satbari area near Chattarpur is the most posh area of South Delhi and contains. residences/farmhouses of the richest in Delhi. Even in the nearby areas of Chattarpur Satbari is the most prized area and demands enormous consideration much above the circle rate. It's a common knowledge that price of 1 Acre of land for farm houses in the posh area like Satbari ranges from 20-30 crores per acre which is also found in the excel sheet at the premises of Mr. Kartar Singh. Thus the Investigation Wing after conducting detailed enquiries and on the basis of the seized documents have come up with the price as mentioned in the reasons for reopening u/s 148 by the assessing officer of the Central Charges and the AO was in full agreement with the findings of the Investigation Wing and Central Charges. It is further noted by the AO that the assessee has submitted that the said land was purchased at Rs.7,50,00,000/- which is above the Circle Rate and the District Valuation Officer (DVO), Income Tax ITA No.1204/Del/2023 6 Department has accepted this price. On perusal of the valuation report submitted by the DVO with respect to the property purchased by the assessee, it is seen that the DVO has valued the land only based on I or 2 transactions which have occurred in the office of the sub-registrar and the conveyance deed as mentioned in the above para usually contains only the declared consideration which is paid in cheque. The allegation of the Department was that there are huge cash transactions in sale purchase of Farm houses and obviously when the department is talking of on money or cash transactions, the cash component will invariably not be mentioned in the conveyance deed. Further the departments formula for arriving at the price of the land is based on the documents seized during the course of search and seizure operation and the document contained prices of various farm houses located in and around the place near Satbari and has clear-cut basis which cannot be doubted. Thus, the AO concluded that the total value adopted by the DVO is not acceptable. Accordingly, the AO has not accepted the valuation of the impugned property made by him at Rs. 3,35,41,500/- by relying on the documents seized from the premises of Shri Kartar Singh as well as common knowledge that there is a huge element of unaccounted cash involved in the land transactions in Delhi. 6. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, the appellant had raised several contentions before the CIT(A) which have been summarized, in the impugned order of CIT(A), as under: i) That notice under section 148 of the Act has not been served and as ITA No.1204/Del/2023 7 such, the instant reassessment proceedings in absence of valid service of notice is invalid and illegal. ii) The assessee company further submitted that the sole basis of addition so made by AO are the documents found from search of Sh. Kartar Singh on 27.07.2016 and also statement of Sh. Sumit Gupta recorded during survey on 23.08.2016, which information was already on record of assessing officer, when assessment under section 153C/143(3) was first framed against the assessee company on 13.12.2016, as such, no fresh material has surfaced after the aforesaid assessment. Accordingly, subsequent reopening of the case is based on change of opinion, which is not sustainable. Further, the said documents/material have never been confronted to assessee company for rebuttal, as such, the same needs to be excluded altogether. iii)A bare perusal of the reasons recorded would make it amply clear that the AO has not mentioned about any tangible material except the letter dated 29.03.2019 from ACIT, CC-30, which suggests that the learned AO had no material in his possession to initiate the instant reassessment proceedings, as it has been held by various courts that mere receipt of letter/information from another officer/ investigation wing does not constitute to be a tangible material and reopening on the basis of the same is not justified. iv) The assessee company submitted that the assessee has only purchased 6 bighas 17 biswas i.e. 1.42 acres of land, whereas, addition has been made on account of undisclosed investment for 16 bighas 9 biswas. Said fact is evident from the purchase deed dated 08.12.2011 which also shows that only 6 bighas 17 biswas have been purchased, which itself indicates that there was no application of mind by the AO while reopening the case. v) That AO had referred the matter to Department Valuation Officer to work out the fair market value at the time of purchase by assessee company and the DVO has given a report stating the fair market value of the property purchased is even less than the price at which the property has been purchased by the assessee company. The said DVO report is binding on the AO, as DVO is a technical expert with regards to valuation and not the AO. 8. The CIT(A) has taken all the aspects into consideration and concluded as follows’ “8.1 I have carefully considered the facts, the assessment order, remand report, rejoinder to remand report and material available on record. It ITA No.1204/Del/2023 8 would be appropriate to consider the merits of the case before dealing with the technical and procedural aspects involved in reopening the case. Since the appellant has contested the fact that the documents and statements on the basis of which the impugned addition has been made were never confronted to it, the AO was requested vide letter dated 09.02.2023, to clarify as to whether such material was supplied to the assessee and was also requested to provide proof of such supply. The AO was also requested to provide the copies of such relied upon documents/materials. The AO's Remand Report dated 06.03.2023 is silent of the aspect of confronting the documents/materials to the assessee during assessment proceedings. It is seen that the assessee had repeatedly requested for copy of material relied on by the AO. However, from reply dated 09.12.2019 of AO, to one request letter dated 09.12.2019 of the assessee, it is seen that the AO has supplied reasons for reopening, but has stated that documents relied upon shall be provided, if deemed fit, during the assessment proceedings. It therefore appears that adverse material was not confronted. The AO has however stated in the Remand Report that the case was reopened based on detailed investigation report, a copy of which has been enclosed with the remand report. In the rejoinder to the remand report, the appellant has submitted that the said addition under section 69 has been made by AO on the basis of an excel sheet found from search of Sh. Kartar Singh (Pg 4, para 6 of AO's order) and statement of Sh. Sumit Gupta recorded during post search proceedings (Pg 4, para 6 of AO's order) and that both the above documents were never made part of discussion by AO during the course of assessment proceedings neither the same were confronted and as a consequence no opportunity for cross examination was ever provided to the assessee. It was further submitted by the appellant that the AO has also not provided any material or letter to establish as to whether the said documents were ever confronted to the assessee during the course of impugned reassessment proceedings. It is, therefore, contended by the appellant that since the aforesaid documents were never provided to the assessee during the course of impugned reassessment proceedings, the same need to be excluded altogether for consideration and the addition so made on the basis of the same deserves to be deleted, as such. It was further submitted by the appellant that instead of providing the documents so relied in the impugned order of reassessment, the AO in the ITA No.1204/Del/2023 9 remand report has submitted a so called alleged "detailed investigation report", which also nowhere mentions about the land being purchased by the assessee appellant neither does it mention about any statement of Sh. Sumit Gupta. The said alleged investigation report contains general information with regard to transactions in certain other properties at a value lower than circle rate and nowhere, mentions about the concerned land being purchased by the assessee at Village Satbari. The appellant has further pointed out that the finding of the assessing officer in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that, Shri Sumit Gupta in a statement under oath has mentioned that huge cash was paid for sale/purchase of the properties is perverse and totally against material available on record i.e. no such adverse statement of Sumit Gupta recorded during the course of survey, has been confronted for rebuttal by the AO (even in the remand report). It is submitted that it is a trite law that any statement or any material gathered at the back of the appellant cannot be used against the appellant and has to be excluded altogether, if such statement/material is not confronted to the appellant for rebuttal. It is further submitted that in addition to the above, the allegation levelled by the AO in the impugned order, that findings of the Investigation Wing have been provided to assessee and assessee is unable to controvert the same is completely flawed and contrary to material available on record. Also, the officer is under an erroneous impression and has recorded perverse findings in the order when stating that, Sh. Sumit Gupta in a statement under oath has mentioned of payment of cash for sale purchase of properties, which findings are contrary to facts. It is further submitted that, AO is groping in dark and has proceeded to give a finding which is contrary to material on record which is totally baseless and not backed by any material, even in the remand report. 8.2 I have considered the remand report and submissions of the appellant as well as material on record. The impugned addition is based on evidences found during the search carried out on Kartar Singh Group, wherein certain documentary evidences were stated to have been found indicating the actual market price of various properties purchased by Shri Sumit Gupta, director of the assessee company and companies controlled by him. This evidence is stated to be contained in the report of the Investigation Wing which has been forwarded by the AO through the remand report and is reproduce earlier in this order. From this ITA No.1204/Del/2023 10 Investigation report, it is observed that as per the excel sheet recovered from the office of Shri Kartar Singh the actual market price of lands in various area of Delhi were much higher than the government rates. Accordingly, the Investigation Wing has listed out the average market prices of land in various areas in Delhi, in which the average market price for land in Satbari area is mentioned as Rs. 1,35,000/- per sq. yard. Though the relevant year is not mentioned in the Investigation report, it is seen from various transactions noted therein that the market rates have been noted for the year 2015 to which most of the noted transactions relate. The mention of Shri Sumit Gupta is only at one para of the report and this relates to a company called M/s Cruise Properties Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL) which owned an agricultural land in Najafgarh area of Delhi and Shri Sumit Gupta was one of the Directors in the said company, who sold his shares to one Shri Dhruva Goel and his family members in 2015. In this connection the statement of Shri Dhruva Goel u/s 132(4) has been mentioned, wherein he had accepted that cash totalling Rs.6.25 crores was paid to Shri Sumit Gupta and another Director of CPPL, Shri Devender Kumar. Other than this, there is no mention of Shri Sumit Gupta in the said investigation report, particularly relating to the impugned transaction which pertains to the appellant carried out during F.Y. 2011-12. Further, no such incriminating statement of Shri Sumit Gupta has been brought on record by the AO in the assessment order and even in the remand report despite being specifically asked to do so. Therefore, the AO’s finding that Shri Sumit Gupta mentioned in his statement that huge cash was paid for sale/purchase of properties and the allegation that he also submitted a list of such properties, is not founded on facts. In fact, from the appellate order dated 30.05.2022 in appeal no. 11461/2015-16 passed by CIT(Appeal)-30, New Delhi, while dealing with the very same transaction of shares of CPPL with Shri Dhruva Goel as mentioned in the investigation report, the addition on account of 50% of the amount of Rs.6.25 crores as per the statement of Shri Dhruva Goel was held to be untenable in the hands of the appellant, Shri Sumit Gupta, holding as follows: “8.8 Considering the judicial pronouncements which enunciate that the statement recorded during the course of search on standalone basis, which were subsequently retracted without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operation would not ITA No.1204/Del/2023 11 empower the Assessing Officer to make the addition merely because any admission was made by the appellant during the search operation. The AO has alleged that Mr. Dhruva Goel has made payment of Rs.3,12,50,000/- in the form of cash to acquire the shares of the appellant in the said company. In this connection, it is seen that the allegation is factually incorrect and not supported by any documents or material. During the course of search, no document, agreement, paper, receipts or any other evidence with regard to alleged cash payment of Rs.6.25 crores were found or gathered. Neither any money trail nor any other document containing the detail of alleged payment made of Rs.6.25 crores for this property were found. Thus, it is seen that there was no incriminating material in possesssion of the AO to substantiate that an amount of Rs.3,12,50,000/- was received by the appellant Mr. Devender Kumar in the form of cash for acquiring the shares of the appellant in the company M/s Cruise Property Pvt. Ltd. 8.9 Further it is to be noted that there is no mention of statement recorded of the appellant during the course of search proceedings or post search in the case of Dhruva Goel to corroborate that the appellant had accepted to have received the impugned amount. 8.10 In view of the above, it can be concluded that no addition either can be made on the basis of statements recorded of anyone without providing of opportunity of cross examination or without briniging any corroborating incriminating material found during the course of search to support the admissions made in the statement. The AO has made addition in the hands of the appellant on the basis of the statement of Mr. Dhruva Goel which was subsequently retracted. Hence, the statement of Mr. Dhruva Goel in the absence of any corroborating incriminating material loses its evidentiary value. Therefore, I hold that the original statement of Mr. Dhruva Goel relied upon by the AO, which was retracted immediately after conclusion of the search, without reference to any incriminating material cannot be the basis of the said addition. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.3,12,50,000/- made in the hands of the appellant Mr. Sumit Gupta is hereby deleted. The appellant gets relief on these grounds of appeal." ITA No.1204/Del/2023 12 8.3 In the above stated order, it is mentioned that there is no mention of statement of Shri Sumit Gupta accepting the fact of cash receipt in the transaction of sale of shares in CPPL. I find that the same is the case before me, wherein there is no statement of either Shri Sumit Gupta or anybody else brought on record by the AO regarding acceptance of cash payment in the impugned transaction. That being the case, the impugned addition is fully based on the investigation report which contains no evidence relating to the impugned transaction. As discussed, the transaction relating to land/shares of CPPL are related to a different entity, different year and different geography (since land of CPPL was at Najafgarh) and hence cannot form a valid basis for addition in the hands of the appellant, more so since the addition relating to the transaction of shares of CPPL already stands deleted. Further, as noted earlier, the said investigation report contains transactions of the year 2015 and is hence not comparable with the impugned case which relates to F.Y. 2011-12. Thus, the investigation report cannot qualify as appropriate basis for making the impugned addition since it does not contain any evidence relating to the assessee and the land in question and further it also fails on the yardstick of time-comparison since it contains transactions of a much later time period. It is observed that no positive material has been brought on record by the AO to prove that additional undisclosed investment was made in the purchase of impugned land by the appellant. In a similar situation the Supreme Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713(SC) has held that an amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee in the absence of positive material brought by the Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to the assessee as the burden lay on the Revenue. While making the impugned addition the AO has further relied on "common knowledge" that actual market rates are much higher than the circle rates of land in Delhi. However, such common knowledge cannot form the basis for affixing huge tax liability on the assessee without proper evidence in that regard. In the case of CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) 261 ITR 664(Del), it has been held that there is no gain saying that to invoke the provisions of section 69B of the Act, the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the real investment exceeds the investments shown in the books of accounts of the appellant. As observed by the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, to throw the burden of showing that there is no ITA No.1204/Del/2023 13 understatement of the consideration received, on the appellant would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish in negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration more than what has been declared by him. Therefore, if the Revenue seeks to hold that the appellant has received or paid more than what has been declared by him in respect of the assessment in question, the onus would lie on the Revenue to prove this fact by bringing some material on record. The AO has failed to bring any such material on record. 8.4 It is further noted that, in the instant case AO had referred the matter to DVO for valuation of the aforesaid property and the departmental valuer as per his report dated 24.11.2020 estimated the value of this land at 3,35,41,500/- as against Rs.8,02,50,100/- declared by assessee in his return of income. Accordingly, the Stamp Valuation Authority as well as the DVO assessed fair market value much lower than what assessee has disclosed in the Sale Deed. The AO has not brought on record any other material suggesting that the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority or the DVO was not correct. The AO has also not brought any other comparative sale instances of similarly situated property to rebut the claim of the assessee. While rejecting the valuation done by the DVO, the AO has stated that "it is seen that DVO has valued the land only based on 1 or 2 transactions which have occurred in the office of sub registrar and the conveyance deed as mentioned in the above para usually contains only the declared consideration which is paid in cheque. The allegation of the department was that there is huge cash transactions in sale purchase of farm houses and obviously when the department is talking of on-money or cash transactions, the cash component will invariably not mentioned in the conveyance deed." Accordingly, the AO found the report of DVO as unacceptable since it was based on only two transactions and further in such transactions only the cheque portion is mentioned whereas the allegation of the department was that huge cash element was involved in land transactions. The observations of the AO do not give a valid basis for discarding the report of the DVO, without citing any comparable instances himself. As contended by the assessee, and as held by ITAT, Delhi in the case of Ved Kumari Subhash Chander (supra) valuation done by the empanelled registered valuer of the Income Tax Department would certainly take precedence over a value which the Assessing Officer might adopt on his own without making a reference to ITA No.1204/Del/2023 14 the DVO. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary on record. It is therefore held that the impugned addition made by the AO after rejecting the valuation report of the DVO is untenable due to the lack any evidence, statement or material in support thereof. Accordingly, the impugned addition of Rs.215,91,54,200/-, as revised to Rs.85,22,67,800/- in the order u/s 154, is hereby deleted. Ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed.” 9. After giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and rival submissions, it comes up that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has extensively examined the facts and circumstances of the case to conclude that the addition was not sustainable. We are of the considered view that when Assessing Officer once has referred the matter to the Valuation Officer to work out the fair market value at the time of purchase of the land by assessee company and the learned DVO has made a report stating that the fair market value of the property alleged to be purchased by under pricing in the sale deed was, in fact, even less than the price at which the property has been purchased by the assessee company, then Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct to hold that this report was binding on the Assessing Officer. We are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer was objecting to the DVO’s report during the remand ITA No.1204/Del/2023 15 proceedings on the basis that DVO made report on the basis of sale value of two immoveable properties in the area but did not consider the fact that actual sales consideration in these areas is far more than the circle rate. Such a general observation without any substantive evidence cannot be relied to discredit report of an expert. 10. Then if we examine the satisfaction note dated 15.01.2016 available at page no.25 of the paper book, it comes up that the issue of recording satisfaction for the purpose of section 153C had in its background the investment made by way of a sale deed with the consideration of Rs.7.5 crores executed by Shri Anil Kumar Virmani in favour of Govindajee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. for the land measuring 16 bighas 9 biswas in Village Satvari, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 11. We find substance in the contentions of learned Senior Counsel that whatever alleged incriminating material is found from the search of Shri Kartar Singh and whatever statement Shri Sumit Gupta had made during survey if examined again will make the reopening based on change of opinion. 12. Then, relying on the statement of Shri Sumit Gupta exclusively for forming an opinion that as the buyers of other ITA No.1204/Del/2023 16 properties in the said area had transacted by under reporting, the consideration in the sale deed, cannot be sustained. Such statement cannot be considered to be sacrosanct and clinching piece of evidence to hold that the properties which the assessee had purchased, from other persons and without any role of Shri Kartar Singh or Shri, Sumit Gupta, was also under valued in the sale deed. Especially, when assessee was denied the right of cross-examination of Shri Sumit Gupta. The findings of CIT(A) are quite justified. Thus, we find no substance in the grounds raised by the Revenue. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.06.2024. Sd/- Sd./- (G.S. PANNU) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13 th June, 2024 dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi