Shri Vishnuprasad S.Agrawal, Navsari V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Navsari

ITA 2567/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9703 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2567/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 VISHUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL 4217, P.G. GARDEN KABILPORE, DIST. NAVSARI 396 445. PAN : ACTPA 8387 R VS ITO, WARD - 4 NAVSARI. ./ ITA NO.2571/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SURESHCHANDRA S. AGRAWAL, ADARSHNAGAR SOCIETY, GRID ROAD KABILPORE, DIST. NAVSARI. PAN : ACTPA 8385 P VS ITO, WARD - 4 NAVSARI. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) DATED 27.7.2011 PASSED ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEES FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09, ARE BEING CHALLENGED. ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 2 2. SINCE A SOLITARY QUESTION IS BEING DISPUTED BY B OTH THE ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND D EEM IT PROPER TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS, BY THIS COMMON ORDER, THO UGH, THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS, BUT, THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS OTHER GROUNDS, EXCEPT WHEREI N, THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.27,39,079/- AND SHRI SURESHCHANDRA S. AGRAWAL, RS.32,20,512/- W HICH HAVE BEEN ADDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV ES, WE GAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS EMERGE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE THAT (VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL), THIS ASSESSEE H AS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 10.3.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,79,150/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSU ED ON 1.9.2009, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 6.9.2009 . ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT SHRI VISHN UPRASAD S. AGRAWAL) HAS BEEN DRAWING INCOME FROM SHARE OF PROFIT FROM T HE FIRM VIZ. M/S.JALARAM & CO., INTEREST INCOME AND RENTAL INCOM E HE HAS ALSO SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF PLOT OF LAND. THE LEARNED AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SIX PLOTS DURING THE YEAR. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES WITH REGA RD TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT PROPER T O NOTE THESE FACTS IN DETAIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NINE PLOTS DURI NG THE YEAR. THE LEARNED AO HAS NOTED DETAILS OF ALL THE PURCHASES I N TABULAR FORM AT PAGE NO.9 AND 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. ACC ORDING TO THE AO, OUT OF TOTAL NINE PLOTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS HALF SHAR ES IN PLOT SHOWN AT SR.NO.9 AND 25% OF THE SHARES IN PLOTS BEARING AT S R.NOS.5, 6, 7 & 8. THE REST OF THE PLOTS WERE PURCHASED IN HIS EXCLUSI VE OWNERSHIP. THE ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 3 TOTAL VALUE AS PER THE PURCHASE DEED WAS RS.29,12,3 50/-, WHEREAS, THE STAMP DUTY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE CIRCLE R ATE NOTIFIED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS ON RS.56,51,429/-. THE AO HAS HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.56,51,429/-, AND THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,12,350/- (RS.56, 51,429/- MINUS RS.29,12,350/-) IS TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE I.T . ACT. THE LEARNED AO HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH HAS BEEN RE PRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE NO.11 TO 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADD ITION OF RS.27,39,079/-. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW, WE TAKE THE FACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUREHC HANDRA S. AGRAWAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELEC TRONICALLY ON 10.3.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,37,450/- A ND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.3,72,562/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 1.9.2009, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE O N 3.9.2009. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PURCHASED SIX PLOTS OF LAND DURING THE YEAR. THE LEARNED AO HAS NOTED THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS, EXHIBITING NAME OF PURCHASER, NAME OF SELLER, CITY SURVEY NO., AREA OF PLOT, REGISTRATION NO. AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION, VALE AS PER SALE DEED, VALUE AS PER COLLECTOR STAMP DUTY, VALUE AS PER AUTHORIZED VALUATION OFFICER. THE LEARNED AO FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF SIX PLOTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EQUAL SHARE IN PLOTS BEARING AT SERIAL NOS.3 AND 6, AND REST OF THE PLOTS PURCHASED IN HIS EXCLU SIVELY OWNERSHIP. THE TOTAL VALUE AS PER PURCHASE DEED HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.18,93,000/-. THE TOTAL VALUE ON WHICH STAMP DUT Y WAS PAID AS PER ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 4 CIRCLE RATE IS OF RS.51,13,512/-. THERE IS A DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN BOTH THESE AMOUNTS OF RS.32,20,512/-. THIS AMOUNT HAS B EEN ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTI ON 69B OF THE ACT. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. 7. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON INQUIRY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE AO FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSE ES HAVE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH DESERVES TO BE ADDED I N THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT, WE DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. IT READS AS UNDER: 'AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLOSED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT - WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULL ION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE A.O. FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEED S THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O.. SATISFAC TORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR.' 8. A PERUSAL OF THE SECTION WOULD REVEAL THAT SECTI ON 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AUTHORIZES THE AO TO DEEM UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT, IF HE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OR O WNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BUL LION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE L D.AO WOULD CALL FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT SOURCE OF INCO ME FOR MAKING SUCH INVESTMENT, AND IF EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THEN, THE EXCESS AM OUNT WOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIA L YEAR. THUS, THE BASIC CONDITION FOR APPLYING UNDER SECTION 69B IS T HAT IT SHOULD BE FOUND ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OR THE ASSESS EE FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THE MONEY, BULLION AND JEWELLERY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH ASSESSEES WERE FOUND TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT FOR PU RCHASE OF PLOTS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES HAVE MAD E INVESTMENT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THIS I S A CRUCIAL QUESTION, WHICH DEMONSTRATES FACTUAL POSITION. IT IS TO BE PROVED WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE, THEY HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS EQUIVALENT TO THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. IT IS THE AO WHO IS DISPUTING AND H ARBOURING A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS, OVER AND ABOVE , THE AMOUNT SO DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. HIS BELIEF IS BASED ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE VALUATION AUTHO RITIES TO CHARGE STAMP DUTY ON REGISTERING THE TRANSFER OF PLOTS. T HIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE AO IS OF NOT SUCH A NATURE, WHICH EMPOWERS HIM TO INVOKE SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. STAMPS DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE OF LAND IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE TOTAL CO NSIDERATION, SAY, 8% OR 10% OF THE TOTAL VALUE. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE NO T DISPUTED LEVY OF THAT STAMP DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF SMALLNESS OF THE AMOU NTS INVOLVED WHEN COMPARED TO THE LITIGATION COST. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY. THIS ISSUE HAS FALLEN FO R CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON EARLIER OCCASIONS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORD ER PASSED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. VALLABHAI, REPORTED IN (2012) 27 TAXMAN N.COM 306 (AHD) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY AND THE FOLLO WING FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOTEWORTHY, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 11. THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TH AT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE PURCHASE COST OF A SQ. MTRS. OF LAND WAS SHOWN TO BE RS. 74/ - PER SQ. MTR. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE LOW AS COMPARED TO THE PREVAILIN G MARKET RATE OF THE LAND. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE PURCHASE PRI CE SHOULD HAVE ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 6 BEEN RS. 510/- PER SQ. MTR. HE TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION THE PREVAILING JANTRY PRICE AND THE AUCTION PRICE OF SU DA, ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT RS. 97,41,000/-.AFTER ADJUSTING FOR THE VALUE DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RS. 14,13,000/- ADDED RS. 83,27,600/-AS THE NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE A.O. HAS THUS RELIED ON THE JANTRY PRICE AND AUCTION PRI CE OF SUDA AND ON THAT BASIS PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE A.O. HAS FAIL ED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS ESTIMATED PRICE. 12. SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE UNDER THE STAMP DUTY RATE IS TREATED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48. IT IS A PPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A SELLER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT B E INVOKED IN CASE OF PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SE CTION 69B. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR COLLECTED CORROBORATIVE EVID ENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. 13. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) [200 3] 261 ITR 664/ 130 TAXMAN 15 (DELHI) THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT HAS HELD THAT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.69B, THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS T HE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE. 14. IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMAR KUMARI SURANA V. CIT [ 1997] 226 ITR 344/[1996] 89 TAXMAN 544 (RAJ.) THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: '10. IT IS TRUE THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MA RKET VALUE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT, 1961, BUT ON THE BASIS OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD SOME REA SONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT PETITIONER HAS INVESTED MORE AMOUNT THAN THE SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS, THEN ONLY T HE ADDITION U/S. 69B CAN BE MADE. THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 15. IN THE CASE OF ITO V. HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTI CALS LTD. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (AHD) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPI TAL GAINS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SELLER ONLY A ND NOT FOR THE PURCHASER. LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED ANY FUR THER AND HAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE AREA FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. SECTION 50C ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 7 CREATES A LEGAL FICTION FOR TAXING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR TAXING THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN APPARENT CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69. 16. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. VIRJIBHAI KALYAN BHAI KUKADIA [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 13 (AHD.) HAD ON IDENTICAL FACTS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 17. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPO RT THE RATES ESTIMATED BY HIM AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE THUS, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A ). IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 9. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERRY PLASTICS P. LTD., 35 TAXMANN.COM 296 AND JAYENDRA N . SHAH, 27 TAXMANN.COM 306 MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 8. BEFORE US COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY CO NTENDED THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE GAP BETWEEN THE VALUATION DI SCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED, WHICH WAS ALSO ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE O F ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AND WHAT WAS ESTIMATED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTH ORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING STAMP DUTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF DVO'S REPORT, FO UND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF SUCH PROP ERTY. COUNSEL PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 9. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED NO ERROR IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SOLE B ASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION WAS THE DVO'S REPORT. DVO'S REPORT MAY BE A USEFUL TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEVERTH ELESS IT IS AN ESTIMATION AND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANYTHING MORE, C ANNOT FORM BASIS FOR ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. I N ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD, ADDITION WAS CORRECTL Y DELETED. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 8 9. COMING TO THE QUESTION OF ADDITION TOWARDS PURC HASE OF LAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL BOTH HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NO DISCLOSURE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN HIS STAT EMENT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION WAS MADE MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF THE DVO'S REPORT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY O THER MATERIAL. MOREOVER, THE DVO HAD ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY RELIED ON JANTRI RATES AND HAD MADE OTHER REFERENCES FOR ARRIVING AT THE V ALUATION. 10. IN THE ABOVE THREE DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN UNANI MOUSLY HELD THAT VALUATION MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS AN ESTIMATED OPINION. IT CAN BE A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE HELP OF THE AO, BUT, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAN D. SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ESTIMATED OPINION, THE ADDITION CANNO T BE MADE. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT, APART FROM THIS ES TIMATED OPINION, THE AO WAS NOT POSSESSING ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. AS FAR A S REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT SECTION 50C IS DEEMING PROVISION, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AO TO REPLACE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO THE FULL VALU E OF CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IN THAT SITUATION, THE AO WOULD REPLACE THE SALE CO NSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BY AN AMOUNT ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WA S PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS SECTION IS OF NO HELP WH ILE DETERMINING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT MADE ANY UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS, AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONS DESERVE TO BE MADE. ITA NO.2571 AND 2567/AHD/2011 9 12. THE ASSESSEE HAVE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES, BUT THESE GROUND WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED THEREIN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRES ANY OTHER GROUNDS. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY, AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.27, 39,079/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL, AND RS.32,20,512/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESCHCHANDRA S. AGRAWAL. 13. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/07/2015