Ms. Anindita Sengupta, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2165/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7484 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SEN GUPTA; SURAJ PRAKASH
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2165/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2165/DEL/2014 (ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07) ANINDITA SENGUPTA D-181, DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI AQEPS7834A (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE-39(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. A. K. SEN GUPTA, ADV & SURAJ PRAKASH, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. S. K. JAIN, DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSESE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 28/01/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)- XXVIII, NEW DELH I. 2. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE REPORT O F THE DVO CAN BE A SOLE BASIS TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SUBSTANTIAL MATER IAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER? DATE OF HEARING 28.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.08.2016 2 ITA NO. 2165/DEL/2014 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND BY PROFESSION AN ADVOCATE HAVING INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 1/4 TH SHARE OF GROUND FLOOR AT PLOT NO. 18, BABAR LANCE, BENGALI M ARKET, NEW DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,50,000/-. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER LOCAL ENQUIR IES MADE BY THE INSPECTOR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE, AND THEREFORE REFER ENCE WAS MADE TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER, NEW DELHI ON 24/10/2008 REQUIRING HIM TO MAKE A PROPER VALUATION REGARDING INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. VIDE HIS REP ORT DATED 26/12/2008 THE VALUATION OFFICER SENT THE VALUATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF ABOVE PROPERTY DETERMINING THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE IN RESPECT OF ABOVE PROPERTY AT RS.1,23,58,00 0/- AS AGAINST DECLARED VALUE OF RS.60,50,000/-. THE ASSE SSEES AR WAS GIVEN THE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT AND W AS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE VALUE DETERMINATION BY THE VALUATION OFFICER BE NOT TAKEN AS THE TRUE INVESTME NT IN THE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY. AND WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.63,08,000/- BE NOT TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 5. VIDE LETTER DATED 29/12/2008, ASSESSEE FILED HER SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND KEPT ON RE CORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WERE NOT TENABLE AS THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY ENTERED INTO PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS AT LOWER 3 ITA NO. 2165/DEL/2014 VALUE IN ORDER TO EVADE TAX. AS SUCH THE AMOUNT OF RS.63,08,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 AND THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SUSTAIN THE AD DITION OF RS. 63,08,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 142A OF THE AC T WAS NOT PROPERLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PROPER INQUIRY RELATED TO THE VALUATION OF THE LAND PURCHASED. ONLY RELYING ON DV OS REPORT CANNOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, P ASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN AR RIVING AT THE FINDING THAT THERE IS AN EXCESS EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THERE ARE VARIOU S JUDGMENTS WHICH STATES THAT DVOS REPORT SOLELY CAN NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR MAKING AN ADDITION U/S 69B O F THE ACT. THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR ANY ENQUIRY AS SUCH T HROUGH PROPER CHANNEL HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 4 ITA NO. 2165/DEL/2014 THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT WAS N OT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)IS SET ASIDE . 10. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 03RD OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 03/08/2016 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28.07.2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29.07.2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2016 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE .08.2016 PS/PS 5 ITA NO. 2165/DEL/2014 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 03.08.2016 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.