The DCIT, Circle-9, Surat V. Shri Sureshbhai Valjibhai Kukadia, Surat

ITA 368/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 36820514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 50C; 69; 56

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.368/AHD/2010 ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-9 SURAT / VS. SHRI SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA SHIVAM BUNGLOW LH ROAD SURAT ! '# ./$% ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFDPK 7422 C ( !& / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( '(!& / RESPONDENT ) !& ) ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. '(!& * ) ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI, A.R. +, * -# / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2012 ./ * -# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/05/2012 '0 / O R D E R PER SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-V , SURAT DATED 30/10/2009. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL:- [1] THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.22,15, 881/- U/S.69B DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ALL EVIDENCES COLLECTED B Y THE AO PROVED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - [2] THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO RS.22,15,881/- U/S.69B DES PITE THE FACT THAT COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES BY A STATE BODY LIKE SUDA (SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) ALSO SHOWED RATES HIGH ER THAN THAT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEAS URING 15,897 SQ.MTS. AT VESU FOR RS.1,73,97,375/-. THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,088/- PER SQ.METER. THE DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE LAND WERE REGISTERED WITH STAMP AUTHORITIES. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT LANDS WERE LOCATED IN THE HEART OF THE SURAT CITY AND THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY LOW COMPARED TO THE NEW JANTRI PRICE WHICH BEC AME EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2008 IN THOSE AREAS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE NEW JANTRI PRICE OF LAND EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2008 AT V ESU WAS RS.5,400/- PER SQ.METER FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RS.9,000/- PER S Q.METER FOR DEVELOPED LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM SUDA (SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) INDIC ATED AUCTION PRICE OF LAND AT VESU VARIED BETWEEN RS.5,000/- TO RS.13,200/- PER SQ.METER. HE HAD ALSO CITED AN INSTANCE OF SALE OF LAND IN THAT AREA DURING 2005-06 SHOWING THE LAND VALUE AT RS.11,000 RS.12 ,000 PER SQ.METER. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO EXP LAIN AS TO WHY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF COMPARABLE SALE INSTA NCES AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 69B BE MADE. THE AS SESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - (I) THERE IS NO IOTA EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY IN VESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED HAS BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUG HT OUT ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXCESS INVESTMENT. (II) JANTRY RATE CANNOT BE ROPED IN U/S.50C TO PRESUME A DDITIONAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE DISC LOSED CONSIDERATION. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED TO MAKE ADDITION U/S69B OF THE ACT. (III) PECULIAR FACTS AFFECTING THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY PARTICULARLY THE DISPUTES PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS WHICH AFFECT ED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (IV) THE INSTANCES CITED IN COMPARABLE CASES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BASE FOR DETERMINATION OF COST OF PUR CHASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES TO JUSTIF Y ANY PAYMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTS, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ADDITION. (V) AS PER SECTION 69-B OF THE I.T.ACT IF TAKE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR MAKING THE INVE STMENT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE B OOKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE ACQUIRES LEGAL JURISDICTION TO MAK E THE ADDITION U/S.69B THAT INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 69B AR E ABSENT IN ASSESSEES CASE. ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE VA RIOUS JUDGEMENTS IN REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEP TABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HELD THAT THE MARKET PRICE AND JANTRI RATE ARE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES TO HOLD THAT THE CONSIDERA TION SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENTS IS LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE THUS INDICA TING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED JANTRI RATE WHI CH WERE EFFECTIVE FROM ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 01/04/2008 AND CERTAIN INSTANCES OF MARKET PRICE FR OM SUDA (SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) THAT THE PRICE AT WHIC H SALE-DEED HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW. IN ORDE R TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO. HOWEVER, SINCE THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME- BARRED AND REPORT FROM DVO WAS PENDING, HE ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF LAN D. CONSIDERING THE MARKET RATE OF THE LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET PRICE OF LAND AT RS.1,500/- PER SQ.METER AND WORKED OUT THE NET UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT RS .65,83,125/- AND ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. A GGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL B EFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSEE MADE F OLLOWING SUBMISSIONS AS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.7 & 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 7. SRI R.N.VEPARI, AR HAS STRONGLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY PAYMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED, THERE CANNOT BE ANY BASIS F OR ANY ADDITION. HE ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED THE LANDS A T RS 1088 PER SQ MTR. WHICH IS FAR ABOVE THE PREVAILING JANTRY PRICE OF RS 74 PER SQ MTR. THE ENHANCED JANTRY PRICE CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4 .2008 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE HERE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTE NDED THAT ,THE JANTRY PRICE OR VALUATION BY STAMP VALUE AUTHORITIES COMES INTO COGNIZANCE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FICTION CREATED BY SECTION 50C AND THAT TOO ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THIS SECTION ONLY SEEKS TO MAKE A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DETERMINING T HE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROP ERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE AR, THE FICTIONAL REGIME OF SECTION 50C IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INVOKING SECTION 69B, MORE SO ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - WHEN NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS. HE ALSO ARGU ED THAT ADDITIONS IN ANY CASE CAN BE DONE U/S 50C IN THE HANDS OF THE SE LLER AND NO SECTION OF THE ACT PERMITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMAT E TRANSACTION PRICE AND ADD THE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPOR T HIS ARGUMENTS. VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2009, THE AR SRI R.N. VEPARI, WHILE REITERATING VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE RECENT A MENDMENTS IN SECTION 56(VII) WHICH COMES INTO EFFECT FROM 01.10.2009. TH E AR ARGUED THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO PRESUME PURCHASE PRICE ON THE SAME LINE AS PRESUMED IN SALE PRICE U/S 50C OF THE IT ACT 1961. ACCORDING TO THE AR, 'THUS, WHILE SECTION 50C CREAT ED A FICTION, IN CASE OF DOCUMENTS FOR SALE BY PRESUMING SALE PRICE ON TH E BASIS OF THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITIES, THERE WA S NO SUCH CORRESPONDING PROVISION TO ASSUME PURCHASE PRICE BY WHICH ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER. NOW, THE REFORE, SECTION 56 HAS BEEN AMENDED AS UNDER AND IS EFFECTIVE FOR TRAN SACTION TAKING PLACE AFTER 01.10.2009 AND NOT BEFORE. HAD IT BEEN THE IN TENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE IT RETROSPECTIVE, IT WOULD HAVE AS WELL AMENDED THE SECTION ACCORDINGLY'. 8. THE AR, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE VERY FACT THA T THE AMENDMENT HAS NOW CAME INTO EFFECT, THE PROVISION PRIOR TO THE AM ENDMENT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ANY ADDITIO N IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH ITS VALUE IS MUCH LESS THAN VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES. 4.1. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DIR ECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.65,83,125/- MA DE U/S.69B OF THE I.T.ACT, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEWS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ARS AND CASE LAWS PRO DUCED BEFORE ME. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK PRODUCED BEFORE ME . THE SHORT ISSUE IS REGARDING INVOKING OF SEC. 69B WITH REGARD TO IN VESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF LANDS. SEC 69B PROVIDES; ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - 'WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY BULLION. JEWELLERY O R OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND (ASSESSING) OFFICER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENT OR ACQUIRING SUC H BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES EXCEEDS THE AM OUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS N O EXPLANATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION PFFERED BY HIS IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE (ASSESSING) OFFICER, SAT ISFACTORY, THE EXCESS IS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR'. 10. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISION THE TH ERE HAS TO BE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPENDED INVESTMENT M ORE THAT WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND FOR SUCH EXCESS INVESTMEN T THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IS NOT FOUN D SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH A CASE THE EXCESS INVEST MENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED U/S 69 OF THE A CT. IN THIS CASE UNDISPUTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAD UNDER TAKEN PURCHASE OF LAND AND THE PURCHASE PRICES AS SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED ARE RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS, OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PURCH ASE PRICE HIGHER THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. WHILE ESTIMATING THE PURCHASE PRICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS RELIED ON SOME SALE INSTANCES COLLECTED FROM SUDA. 11. IN MY VIEW, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERT Y EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON SOME SALE INSTANCES WITH SUDA AND ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET PRICE OF LAND. SUCH PRESUMPTION CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADD ITION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQU IRY OR COLLECTED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS ESTIMATED TRANSACTION PRICE. THE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES CA N BE CONSTRUCTED AS GUIDE TO INDICATE THAT INVESTMENT RECORDED IN THE B OOKS MAY BE UNDERSTATED. BUT THIS FACT ALONE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN TH E PROPERTY. MUCH MORE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY WAY OF ADDUCING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIO N U/S 69B, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - 12. THE ONLY PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHERE RECOURSE TO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE VALUATION AUTHORITIES CAN BE T AKEN IN SECTION 50C. THERE IS NO OTHER SECTION IN THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZ ES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ANY ACTION PARTICULARLY UNDER SECTI ON 69B BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE VALUATIO N AUTHORITY COMMONLY KNOWN AS JANTRY PRICE. HERE ALSO, SECTION 50C IS VERY SPECIFIC AND CONTAINS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE UNDER THE VA LUE AS PER JANTRY PRICE IS TREATED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48. THIS PROVI SION IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A SELLER OF PROPERTY AND CAN NOT BE INV OKED IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 69 B. THIS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN ITAT 1749/AH D/2008 DATED 29.08.2008 IN CASE OF BHARATKUMAR N. PATEL .HOWEVER , THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY. AS S TATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AT RS 1088 PER SQ MTR. AS AGAINST THE PREVAILING 3ANTRY RATE OF RS 74 PER SQ MTR. IN VIEW OF THIS AND IN ABSENCE OF FULFILLING THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 69B. I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO DEL ETE RS.65,83,125 MADE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S), NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHE R HAND, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF TH E RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, HA D PURCHASED A PIECE OF URBAN LAND AT PRICE OF RS.1,088/- PER SQ.METER. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESSER PURCHASE PRICE THAN THE MARKET RATE OF THE LAND PER SQUARE METER WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - MORE THAN RS.10,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. AFTER OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM SUDA REGARDING THE RATES OF LAND DURING SALE THROUGH AUCTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF LAND B E NOT ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE OF SALE INSTANCES AND ADDIT ION BE NOT MADE U/S.69B OF THE I.T.ACT. ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON THE PREVALENT RATE AT THE TIME OF THE SALE-DEED MADE ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF LA ND. HE ALSO POINTED OUT SOME DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY, LIKE SITUATION O F THE LAND WAS NOT IN A DEVELOPED/APPROVED AREA OF THE CITY. ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT MORE THAN THE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXPENDED ON PURCHASE OF THIS LAND AND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69-B BE NOT ATTRAC TED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. HOWEVE R, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.22,15,881/- BY ESTIMATING THE RATE OF THE LAND AT RS.1,500/- PER SQ.METER U/S.69B OF THE I.T.ACT. HOWEVER, THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S.69B OF THE I.T.ACT. BEFORE US ALSO, REVENUE HA S FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE SPENT MORE AMOUNT ON PURCHASE OF THIS LAND, THAN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE JA NTRI RATES WHICH HAD BEEN MADE THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PURCHASE PRI CE OF THIS LAND WERE EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2008 AND THE LAND WAS PURCHAS ED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, THEREFORE THE JANRTRI RATES FOR SUBSE QUENT YEARS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION. WE FURTHER FIN D THAT EVEN AFTER TAKING ITA NO.368/AHD/ 2010 DY.CIT VS. SH.SURESHBHAI VALJIBHAI KUKADIA ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - INTO CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS INSTANCES, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE RATE OF LAND AT RS.1,500/- PER SQ.MET ER WHICH WAS NOT AT A VERY HIGHER SIDE THAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE F URTHER FIND THAT JANTRI RATE PREVALENT DURING THE PERIOD OF TRANSACTION OF THIS LAND WAS ONLY RS.74/- PER SQ.METER, WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PU RCHASE PRICE AT RS.1,088/- PER SQ.METER. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF JANTRI RATES PREVALENT AT THE TIME OF TRANSACTION. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT W AS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DOUBT THE BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.65,83,125/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AND LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THIS ADDITION AND, THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS HEREBY UP HELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( D.K. TYAGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/ 05 /2012 1.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '0 * '-2 3'2- '0 * '-2 3'2- '0 * '-2 3'2- '0 * '-2 3'2-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(!& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - +4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. +4() / THE CIT(A)-V,SURAT 5. 278 '- , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9, / GUARD FILE. '0+ '0+ '0+ '0+ / BY ORDER, (2- '- //TRUE COPY// : :: :/ // / $ $ $ $ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD