Rajendra Kumar, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1959/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4402 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Tangible material; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 50C; 131; 69; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1959/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 RAJENDRA KUMAR 380, AGCR ENCLAVE, VIKASH MARG, EXTN. DELHI PAN NO. AAJPK5780A VS. DCIT CIRCLE 29 (1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VED JAIN, CA MS. UMANG LUTHRA, ADVOCATE SH. HIMANSHU AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. GAYASUDDIN ANSARI, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING: 30/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/02/2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 OF THE CIT(A)-16, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2011-12. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DRIVES INCOME FROM TRADING OF VARIOU S TYPES, SHAPES, QUANTITIES OF NUT, BOLTS, SCREWS AND FASTNE RS. THE ASSESSEE IS A GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIERS CATERING TO A VAST NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS AND HAVING VARIOUS TYPES OF NEEDS AND REQ UIREMENTS. PAGE | 2 HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2011 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,21,680/-. 3. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES DURING T HE YEAR, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- S. NO. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY CIRCLE RATE AS MENTIONED ON THE SALE DEED ACTUAL COST ON WHICH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED 1 3402, GROUND FLOOR BAZAR SITA RAM DELHI - 110006 7,60,000/ - 4,50,000/ - 2 PART OF PROPERTY NO. 3402 TO 3413, BAZAR SITA RAM, DELHI-110006 66,90,000/ - 15,50,000/ - 4. SINCE THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE P RICE AND CIRCLE RATE, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN W ITH EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED AT SUCH A LOWE R VALUE AS AGAINST THE HIGHER CIRCLE RATE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 14.03.2014 FILED THE FOLLOWING REPLY TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE:- JUSTIFICATION OF VALUE ON WHICH THE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED :- A. THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT GROUND FLOOR, PART OF P ROPERTY NO-3402 TO 3413, MEASURING 178 SQ MTRS SITUATED IN GALI MURGHAN, SIT A RAM BAZAR, DELHI WAS PAGE | 3 PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 15,50,000/- ONLY WHILE THE CIRCLE RATE WAS RS. 66.90.000/-. THE REASONS ARE AS UNDER:- I. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN SLUM AREA. II. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IS VERY OLD. III. THE PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS NAMEL Y M/S PREM SUKH DASS JAWAHAR LAI AND SH. MOHAN SAROOP SINCE AGES. THERE WAS A GREAT ELEMENT OF RISK INVOLVED IN PURCHASING A PROPERTY WHICH IS OCC UPIED BY TENANTS. IV. THE ASSESSEE TOOK A GREAT RISK IN PURCHASING SU CH A TENANT OCCUPIED PROPERTY, IV. THE ASSESSEE GOT THE PROPERTY VALUED BY A REGISTERED VALUER WHOSE REPORT IS ANNEXED AS PER ANNEXURE 80. B. THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT GROUND FLOOR, PART OF P ROPERTY NO-3402 TO 3413, MEASURING 33.56 SQ MTRS SITUATED IN GALI MURGHAN, S ITA RAM BAZAR, DELHI WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 4,50,000/- ONLY W HILE THE CIRCLE RATE WAS RS 7,60,000/-. THE REASONS ARE AS UNDER. I. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN SLUM AREA. II.THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IS VERY OLD. III. THE PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS NAMEL Y M/S PREM SUKH DASS JAWAHAR LAI SINCE AGES. THERE WAS A GREAT ELEMENT O F RISK INVOLVED IN PURCHASING A PROPERTY WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK A GREAT RISK IN PURCHASING SUCH A TENANT OCCUPIED PROPERTY. IV. THE ASSESSEE GOT THE PROPERTY VALUED BY A REGIS TERED VALUER WHOSE REPORT IS ANNEXED AS PER ANNEXURE 81 PAGE | 4 5. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO TH E DVO FOR OBTAINING A REPORT ON THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTI ES. HE ALSO CONFRONTED THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTIES AND RECORDE D THE STATEMENT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ON E OF THE SELLER THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.53,47,387/-BEING THE DIF FERENCE IN THE PURCHASE PRICE AND VALUE REPORTED BY DVO IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY NO.3402, SITA RAM BAZAR AND CIRCLE RATE OF THE OTHER PROPERTY TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER :- VALUE CALCULATED AS PER VALUATION REPORT OF PROPERTY NO. 3402, SITA RAM BAZAR RS.15,23,450/- PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY SHOWN BY ASSESSEE (-) R S.4,50,000/- DIFFERENCE IN VALUE 10,73, 450/- CIRCLE RATE OF PART OF PROPERTY NO. 3402-3413, RS.58,23,937 SITA RAM BAZAR PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY SHOWN BY ASSESSEE (- )RS.15,50,000/- 42,73,937 DIFFERENCE IN VALUE 53,47,387/- 6. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,13,57,970/-. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DIRECTING THE AO TO GIVE 15% REBATE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD AR AND THE VALUATION REPORT. I AGREE WITH THE CO NTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE REASONABLE TIME TO STUDY AND SUBMIT HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE VALU ATION REPORT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE DVO IN HIS REPORT HAS MENTIONED CATEGORICA LLY THAT IN CASE THE INSTANCES PAGE | 5 OF NEARBY SALE WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE HE WOULD CONSIDER THEM. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF T WO SALE DEEDS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, HAS TO BE VIEWED. I FIND ENOUGH MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT THESE TWO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON MERIT, NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. I FIND THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS QUITE RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UNLESS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED, THE REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER CANNOT BE MADE. I AM AFRAID THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT IS A PROPRIETOR AND HAS SUBMITTED HIS RET URN IN THE CAPACITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL. SINCE THERE WAS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL DIFF ERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS PER CIRCLE RATE AND THE VALUATION AS COMPUTED BY THE RE GD. VALUER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VA LUATION CELL. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE METHOD ADOPT ED FOR VALUATION BY THE DVO WAS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS REGARD, IT MUST NOT BE FOR GOTTEN THAT THE DVO IS A SPECIALISED OFFICER TO HELP THE ASSESSING OFFICER, 'THE DVO POSSESS THE NEEDED TECHNICAL COMPETENCE TO UNDERTAKE THE VALUATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APP ELLANT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THEM HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO REVIEW OF THE EARLIER REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. IT IS NOT AS IF THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE DVO IS IL LEGAL. THE DVO ADOPTED THE METHOD WHICH AT THE TIME OF VALUATION WAS MOST SUIT ABLE. AS FAR AS THE STATEMENTS OF THE SELLERS ARE CONCERN ED, BOTH THE SELLERS ARE THE INTERESTED PARTIES AS IF THE ACCEPT TO HAVE RECEIVE D MORE CONSIDERATION THAN REFLECTED IN THE REGD. DOCUMENT, THEY WILL ALSO BE AFFECTED IN THE SAME PROPORTION. SO THEIR DENIAL IS REJECTED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALUATION REP ORT SAYING THAT THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED WERE TENANTED. EVEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS BOUN D TO COME DOWN WHETHER THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN TENANT AND LANDLORD OR NOT, WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION REBATE OF 15% ON THIS ACCO UNT IS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. PAGE | 6 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16 (HEREINAFTER LD. COMMISSIONER] IS BAD IN LAW AND AG AINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER 'ACT) 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN UNDERSTAN DING FACTS OF THE CASE AND MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER IS SEL F CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER IS BIA SED AND HE HAS HARASSED THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER IS AGA INST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS IGNORED ALL THE FA CTS, INFORMATION AND SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING ORD ER. 7. THAT THE ASSESSEE RESERVES A RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF FINAL HEARING. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES IN THE SIMILAR VICINITY AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME WHICH WERE SOLD AT A PRICE BELOW THE CIRCLE RATES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FORWARDED THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46 A AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A REJ OINDER TO THE SAID REMAND REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER CONSIDE RING THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED ONLY A REBATE OF 15 % ALTHOUGH HE PAGE | 7 HAD STATED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT DISPUTED TO THE FACT THAT SUCH PROPERTIES ARE TENANTED PROPERTIES. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE IS THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT S ELLER OF THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 50 C IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF THE LAND OR BUIL DING OR BOTH AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY. SIMI LARLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 (2) (VII) (B) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THESE PROVISIONS WERE INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE BILL 2013 W.E.F. 01.04.2014 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSIT ION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SH. SUNIL GHANSHYAMDAS VERLIANI VIDE ITA NO. 3813/DEL/2014 ORDER DATED 28.11.2016. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ARE ALSO NOT APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A O IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY RECORD ING THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES I.E. MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA WHO HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD AT PRICE BELOW THE PREVALENT CIRCLE RATES . FURTHER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SOMETHING MORE OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THE BA SIS OF ADDITION IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE DV O IN VALUATION PAGE | 8 REPORT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 11. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE MADE ADDITION OF RS.53,47,387/- BEING THE UNDI SCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASS ESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES FOR RS.20 LACS WHEREAS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUER IN ONE OF THE PROPERTIES I S RS.15,43,450/- AND THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE OTHER PRO PERTY IS RS.58,23,937/-. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED TH E AO TO GIVE 15% REBATE OUT OF THE SALE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE AO, THE REASONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN TH E PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PROPERTIES WERE SITUATED IN SLU M AREA AND ARE OLD CONSTRUCTION AND ARE TENANTED ONE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED VALUATION REPORT FROM APPROVED VALUER. FU RTHER ASSESSEE HAS FILED SALE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES IN THE SIMILAR VICINITY AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND THE STATEMENT OF THE SEL LER WAS ALSO RECORDED WHO HAD CONFIRMED TO HAVE SOLD THE PROPERT IES AT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND THERE IS NOTHI NG ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY EXTRA MONEY OVER AND ABOVE PAGE | 9 WHAT IS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. IT IS ALSO HIS SUB MISSION THAT NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE APPLICABL E TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 56 (2) ( VII) (B) ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISS ION THAT ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE U/S. 6 9 OF THE IT ACT SINCE THE AO HAS CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER OF BOTH THE P ROPERTIES I.E. MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA. 13. WE FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE AO HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT BOTH THE PROPERTIES WE RE SITUATED IN SLUM AREA AND WERE VERY OLD AND TENANTED PROPERTIES . FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SALE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES IN THE SIMILAR VICINITY AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME WHICH WERE ALSO SOL D AT A PRICE BELOW THE CIRCLE RATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE TH E ASSESSEE IS A BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE SELLER OF THE PRO PERTY, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE. S IMILARLY THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2011-12 AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION I.E. 56 (2)(VII) (B), WHICH W ERE INTRODUCED BY FINANCE BILL 2013 W.E.F. 01.04.2014 ARE ALSO NOT AP PLICABLE. AS PER THE SAID AMENDMENT IF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ARE PURCHASED /RECEIVED FOR INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, I .E. LESS THAN STAMP DUTY VALUE BY RS.50,000/- OR MORE, THEN THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AND INADEQUATE CONSIDE RATION SHALL BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR HUF AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE FURTHER FIND THE AO IN THE INSTAN T CASE HAS PAGE | 10 CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY RECORDING THE STAT EMENT OF THE SELLER OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES WHEREIN HE HAS CATEGO RICALLY ADMITTED BY STATING THE REASONS FOR SELLING THE PROPERTY AT PRICE BELOW THE PREVALENT CIRCLE RATES. FURTHER NOTHING HAS BEEN BR OUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANYTHING EXTRA OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUE OF AGREEMENT IN ANY OTHER FORM OF CONSIDERATION. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT MONEY HAS EMANATED FROM THE ASSESEES COFFERS. THE SOLE RELIANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE BASIS OF ESTIMATES MADE BY THE DVO IN THE VALUATION REPORT. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECIS IONS THAT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES A ND CONJECTURES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED OL D TENANTED PROPERTIES SITUATED IN SLUM AREAS, FILED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES IN THE SIMILAR VICINITY AT ABOUT THE SAM E TIME WHICH WERE SOLD AT PRICE BELOW THE CIRCLE RATE, ALSO FILE D VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER AND THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTI ES HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND HAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE SOLD THE PR OPERTY AT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED ONLY AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT ASSES SEE HAS PAID ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DE ED, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO ADDITION I S WARRANTED IN THE INSTANT CASE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 69 OF THE ACT, IT 1961. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. PAGE | 11 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.02.2020. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 27.02.2020 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 27.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.0 2.2020 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER