ITO, Ward-1, RAJSAMAND V. M/s. Anmol Marmo Grani Pvt. Ltd., RAJSAMAND

ITA 30/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70296 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI SHRI G K GARGIEYA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Depreciation; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.30/JODH/2009 (A.Y. 2001-02) ITO, VS. MS/. ANMOL MARMO GRANI WARD-1, RAJSAMAD. PVT. LTD., N.H 8, MORCHANA, DIST. RAJSAMAND. PAN NO. AACCA 8822 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, SHRI G.K. GARGIEYA & SHRI SARVESH BALDI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12/11/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/11/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 14/11/2008 OF LD. CIT (A), UDAIPUR. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN:- 2 1. ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 2,50,000/- OUT OF THE ADD ITION OF RS. 14,16,350/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY BY M/S. PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 63,90,200/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. 2. VIDE GROUND NO.1 GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELAT ES TO THE RELIEF OF RS. 2,50,000/-, OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IT WAS ITS FIRST YEAR O F BUSINESS. SINCE, THIS YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF INCORPORATION, SHARE CAP ITAL OF RS. 42,17,250/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH 05 DIRECTOR S, WHO HAVE BROUGHT THE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,00,000/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY AND TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SOME PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION, STATEMENTS OF WHOSE WERE RECORDED. SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) WERE ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN, BUT MOST O F THOSE RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK OF POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT INCOMPLE TE ADDRESS/REFUSED / RECEIVER NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS ETC. THE A SSESSING OFFICER 3 CONSIDERED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 14,16 ,350/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACC EPTED THE SHARE CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 25,00,000/- BEING CONT RIBUTION MADE BY THE DIRECTORS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT COMPLETE NAM ES AND ADDRESSES IN RESPECT OF 47 PERSONS, WHO CONTRIBUTED SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY OF RS. 17,17,250/- WERE FURNISHED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF FEW OF THE P ERSONS AND AT NO STAGE OF TIME DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF THE PERSONS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 3 THAT THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED ON 15/03/2004 I .E. AT THE FAG END OF TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING ASSESSMENT. IT WAS CO NTENDED THAT SIMPLY BY NOT TAKING DELIVERY OF THE LETTERS ADDRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, OR THE REMARKS THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES, THE COMPLETE ADD RESSES WERE NOT AVAILABLE BY ITSELF COULD NOT BE THE BASIS, REASONS , CRITERIA TO SAY THAT ALL THESE 35 PERSONS WERE BOGUS, FAKE PERSONS, BINAMIDA R OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DOUBT OF GENUI NENESS COULD NOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF RS. 2,50,000/- IN THE NAME OF M/ S. PANKAJ STONE PVT. 4 LTD. AS THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE APPLICANT WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS ON REGULAR BASIS AND BEING ASSESSED REGULARLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO G AVE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF OTHER SHARE APPLICANTS AND ALSO RELIED V ARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS MENTIONED AT PAGE 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 42,17,250/- INCLUDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 17,17,250/ -, OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED RS. 3,00,900/- AS EX PLAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,16,350/- HAD BEEN ADDED UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE PRODUCED 07 SHARE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND R EMAINING APPLICATIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THEIR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED. LEARNED CIT(A) P OINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 16/10/ 2008 ACCEPTED THAT SMT. PUSHPA DEVI KOTHARI, WHO INVESTED RS. 5,00,000 /- TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD SHOWN, THIS INVESTMENT, IN HE R BALANCE SHEET ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SHE WAS ASSE SSED TO TAX AT WARD- 2, MAKRANA. THEREFORE, INVESTMENT MADE BY HER MAY BE ACCEPTED. 5 6. AS REGARDS TO THE INVESTMENT BY M/S. PANKAJ STONE P VT. LTD., THE LEARNED CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF M/S. PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD., THEREFORE, CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATI ON. REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COUNTER- COMMENTS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AT JAIPUR HAVING PAN AACCP 5185 E, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 02 CHEQUES FROM THE SAID COMPANY AND THE D IRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HAD ISSUED CONFIRMATION LETTER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED D URING 2000-01 WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE AND CROSS-VERIFIABLE FROM THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S.PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MA DE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BEFORE FURNISHING THE REMAND REPORT. 7. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND R EPORT HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF S MT. PUSHPA DEVI KOTHARI AND HAD NOT CONDUCED ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIR Y IN THE CASE OF M/S. PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD., IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE 6 FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS TO ASSESSING OFFICER I.E . BANK ACCOUNT, PAN ETC. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 7,50,000/- (RS. 5,00,000/- + 2,50,000/-). NOW THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- RELATING TO M/S.PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHAR E APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S. PANKAJ STONES PVT. LTD. A-14, VIVEKANAND COLONY, BEHIND GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS, JODHWARA, JAIPUR. THE SAID COMPANY WAS ASSESSED TO TAX HAVING PAN AACCP 5185 E AND THE AMO UNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEREFORE, AD DITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (2008) 216 CTR (SC ) 195 . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS. 63,90,200/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. 7 10. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND AND BUILDING ALONG WITH GANGSAWS INS TALLED THEREON. FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICED THAT THE REGISTRAR HAD LEVIED A SHORT STAMP FEE OF RS. 3,06, 490/- AND RS. 3,32,530/- IN TWO CONVEYANCE DEEDS REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY. IN BOTH THE PROPERTIES, THE SALE CONSID ERATION WAS DECLARED AT RS. 5,00,000/- WHILE THE REGISTRAR ASSESSED THE VAL UE AT RS.35,64,900/- AND RS. 33,25,300/- FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. ACCOR DINGLY, STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,39,020/- WAS FOUND TO BE SHORT. ON THAT BASI S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTATED THE CONSID ERATION OF RS. 63,90,200/- FOR WHICH SHORT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN CHA RGED. HE ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER T O THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISO OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT AT ALL APP LICABLE, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH WERE AUDITED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE DISCLOSED THE COST OF ASSETS SO PURCHASED AND ALSO DISCLOSED SOUR CE THEREOF, WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER ST ATED THAT THE 8 ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT O F THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS AND BONAFIDE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION SO ENTERED BETWEEN THE SELLER AND PURCH ASER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE LAND, WHICH WAS ORIGINA LLY PURCHASED BY M/S. MANJUSHREE MINERALS LTD., CALCUTTA. THE SAID COMPA NY SOLD THE LAND TO M/S. RITU INDUSTRIAL MINERALS PVT. LTD., WHO SOLD I T TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE VENDOR HAD INSTALLED MARBLE SAWING UNITS ON THE SAID LAND IN 1983 WHICH REMAINED IN OPERATIVE SINCE 1991 AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VENDOR-COMPANY BY ITS RESOLUTIO N DATED 24/03/2000 HAD APPROVED SALE OF THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND, STAMP WORTH RS. 50,000/- WAS BORNE OUT BY THE SELLER AND RS. 5,110/- BEING REGISTRY EXPENSES WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT TH E REGISTRAR CHARGED ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF RS. 20,000/- PLUS RS. 3,12 ,530/-. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY DISCLOSED THE NAME AND ADDRE SS OF THE SELLER, WHICH WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRY DOCUMENTS AND THE SELLER OBTAINED NECESSARY CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE UNDER SECT ION 230A OF THE ACT FROM THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. IT WAS STATED THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PU RPOSES OF STAMP DUTY, HAD NO STATUTORY BASE OR FORCE BECAUSE IT IS CHARGE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF 9 STAMP DUTY ONLY WHERE THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY HA S DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE FLAT RATE IN A PARTICU LAR AREA, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. JAWAJI NAGNATHAN VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (1994) 4 SSC (1995) 2. PRAKASHWATI VS. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHOR ITY (1996) 4 SSC 657 3. CGT VS. R. JAWAHAR (1996) 217 ITR 59 (MAD) 4. CGT VS. R. DAMODARAN (2001) 247 ITR 698 (MAD) 5. U.P. JAN NIGAM, LUCKNOW VS. KERALA PROPERTIES P. LTD. AIR 1996 SC 1170 6. CIT VS. RAJA NARENDRA 123 TAXATION 639 (RAJ) 7. RAWAT RAM MITTAL, PRAS BAI AND SOHANLAL, JODHPUR (ITAT JODHPUR) 8. DEEPIKA FATEHPURIA (2002) TW 113 (ITAT JAIPUR BE NCH) 9. KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT VS. UNION OF INDIA 214 ITR 6 10 (RAJ) 10. HINDUSTAN MOTORS VS. CIT 249 ITR 424 (MAD) 11. DINESH KUMAR MITTAL VS. ITO 193 ITR 770 (ALL) 12. ITO VS. DINESH BAJAJ (2003) 33 DTC 341 (JODH) 13. CIT VS. NARESH KR. (2003) 130 TAXMAN 15 (DEL.) 14. K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597.(S.C.) 12. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF OLD UNIT F ROM M/S. RITU MINERALS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., THE TOTAL LAND WAS AGRICULTUR AL LAND, WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND PARTL Y, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONVERSION ORDER. HE FURTHER OB SERVED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE NAME OF SHRI NARAYAN SONI S/O SHRI MODIRAM BRAHMIN, WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY M/S. MANJUSHREE MIN ERALS LTD., 10 CALCUTTA FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 76,000/- AND M/S. MAN JUSHREE MINERALS LTD. SOLD THE LAND TO M/S. RITU MINERALS INDUSTRIES PVT . LTD. ON 16/04/1985 BY TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS FOR RS. 36,000/- & RS. 40,0 00/-, WHICH WERE RECORDED IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AT MUTATION NO. 187 & 188 DATED 14/05/1985. M/S. RITU MINERALS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD . HAD INSTALLED MARBLE SAWING UNIT ON THE ABOVE SAID LAND IN 1983, BUT THE PLANT WAS LYING CLOSED/UNATTENDED SINCE 1991 AND THE ASSESSEE PURCH ASED THE SAID LAND ALONG WITH MACHINERY FROM M/S. RITU MINERALS INDUST RIES PVT. LTD. FOR RS. 10,00,000/- ON 10/04/2000. THE ASSESSEE OPERATED T HE MACHINERY AND CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES TILL SEPTEMBER, 2004, AF TER THAT, IT WAS LYING CLOSED AND THE PLANT AND MACHINERY HAD BEEN GIVEN O N CONTRACT IN THE YEAR 2006 AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT AFFORD TO RUN O N ITS OWN. LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS FAR AS VALUATION OF THE LAN D AND MACHINERY IS CONCERNED, SHORT PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,39, 020/- TO THE REGISTRAR DID NOT AMOUNT TO UNDERSTATING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND MACHINERY AS THE PAYMENT OF SHORT STAMP DUTY OF BOT H THE LAND AND MACHINERY HAD BEEN PAID THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT AND SH OWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAD COME INTO FORCE FROM 01/04/2003 AND THE SAME WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER 11 CONSIDERATION IS 2001-02. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE WAS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE PAID MORE CONSIDERATION THAN THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED, BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. LEARNED CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE (WDV) OF TH E MACHINERY CAME DOWN TO RS. 13,939/- ON 31/03/2000 AND SIMILARLY TH E OPENING BALANCE OF FACTORY AS ON 31/03/1994 WAS AT RS. 3,50,000/-, WHI CH CAME DOWN TO RS. 58,370/- AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON 31/03/2000. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS NOT IN USABLE CONDITION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD TO IN CUR EXPENSES OF RS. 9,34,000/- TO MAKE IT OPERATIVE. THEREFORE, FROM N O ANGLE UNDER VALUATION OF LAND AND MACHINERY WAS ESTABLISHED OR PROVED BY THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO HELD T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT WERE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT MADE, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. HE ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 13. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT WERE WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND 12 THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF VALUE TAKEN BY THE REGI STRAR FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. I T WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SHORT PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID MORE AMOUN T THAN THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR PURCHASING T HE LAND ALONG WITH PLANT & MACHINERY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE A SSESSEE CORRECTLY DECLARED OR DISCLOSED THE CONSIDERATION RELATING TO PURCHASE OF LAND, BUILDING AND MACHINERY. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VENDOR RECEIVED MORE AMOUNT AND WAS HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THIS TRANSACTION. ON A SIMILA R ISSUE, THE HON'BLE 13 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMAR KUMARI SURANA VS. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT REAL I NVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BUT ON THE BASIS OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD SOME REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND IN ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69B . 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF VALUE TAKEN BY THE REGISTRAR FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, BUT NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBS TANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 17. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA A ND OTHERS (1994) 214 ITR 610 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE MARKET RATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION O F AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS NOTIFIED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR CAN ALSO HAVE NO APPLICATION FOR DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE UNDER CHAPTER XXC OF THE ACT. IT IS LIMITED ONLY FOR PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY. 18. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S AND IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE 14 AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH NOVEMBER , 2013. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.