Sri D Srinivas, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 642/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74591 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Revised return
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 D. SRINIVAS, HYDERABAD APPELLANT (PAN ACNPD2167L) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPON DENT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 20/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/01/2014 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.2 2,37,635/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,20,000/-. THE RETURN WA S FILED ON 27.07.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SEARCH OPERATION WAS C ONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.08.2009 AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF TH E INCOMETAX ACT ADMITTING AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.83,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY BOOKED THE FLAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCH ASE ON 2001 AT WHICH 2 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS DATE THE MARKET RATE AS WELL AS AGREED RATE WAS RS. 34.70 LACS AT WHICH RATE THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THE BOOKING. HOWEVER, T HE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLEX IN WHICH THE FLAT IS LOCATED HAD BEEN D ELAYED FOR SOME REASON AND THE COMPLETION HAS ONLY TAKEN PLACE DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, REGISTRATION HAS TAKEN P LACE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.34.70 LAKHS HAS BEEN PAID TO THE BUILDER EVEN PR IOR TO THE REGISTRATION. 3. IT WAS STATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAS FIXED A RATE OF 1.21 CRORES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SAID FLAT IN 2007 AND THIS IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF REGISTR ATION AND NOT AS A SALE CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE PA ID THE STAMP DUTY FOR REGISTRATION AT THE VALUE INDICATED ABOVE AND R EGISTERED THE FLAT IN HIS NAME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE S AID SALE DEED CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ABOVE VALUATION IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF STAMP DUTY AND NOT BY WAY OF A SAL E CONSIDERATION AND THE REGISTERED AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE PAID IS ONLY RS.34.70 LAKS AND REGISTERED THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS FACT CAN BE ALSO SEEN FROM THE SALE DEED I TSELF. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RS.34.70 LAKHS ONLY AND NOT RS.1.21 CRORES AS DETER MINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, IT WAS CONTENDED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 50C IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERT Y AND NOT TO THE BUYER AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B HAS BEEN W RONGLY APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE CASE. 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION THE OFFICIALS OF THE SEARCH PARTY HAS NOT FOUND ANY INCRIMINATING 3 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE DECISION BY WAY O F CONJECTURES AND SURMISES IN RELATION TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHIL E FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS RESPECT, WE REPRODUCE BELOW THE CONTENTS IN THE SALE DEED TO PROVE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS O NLY RS.34.70 LAKHS AND NOT RS.1.21 CRORES. PARA 43 OF SALE AGREEMENT R EADS AS UNDER: HENCE, MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS RS.1,21 ,94,000/-. HOWEVER THE AGREED VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS RS .34,70,000/- WHICH WAS ACCORDING TO THE PREVAILING MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING IN THE YEAR 2001. STAMP DUTY UNDER ARTICLE 25(D) IS PAID ON THE HIGHER OF THE TWO VALUES: 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SALE DEED THAT THE VALUE OF RS.1.21 CRORES IS ONLY FOR LEVY OF STAMP DUTY BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES AND NOT THE SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.34.70 LKAHS WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY A GOVER NMENT AUTHORITY I.E REGISTRATION AUTHORITY OF MAHARASHTRA STATE. T HIS ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION PAID IS ONLY RS.34.70 LAKHS. THE AO HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST AMOUNTING TO RS . 87,24,000/- AND, THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE SAME U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL TO C IT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 06.0 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. .IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.S7 ,24,000/ - IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN SOLELY MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS PER SRO OF RS. 1,21,94,000/- AND THE REGISTERED VALUE OF RS. 34,70,000/-. IT IS A FACT T HAT THAT IN THE LIGHT OF SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, SUCH AS THAT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. 4 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS MANJULA DHARMESH PATEL (TAX APPEAL NO.1324 OF 2010, DATED 21-9-2011), SEC. SOC OF THE ACT GIVES RISE TO DEEMING FICTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPI TAL GAIN BY A SELLER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN CASE THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS HIGHER THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION DEC LARED. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT IN TERMS OF SUCH JUDICIAL OPINIO N, THE PROVISIONS .OF SEC.SOC CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR ASCERTAINING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE PURCHASER, PARTIC ULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON .THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE AGREED CONSIDERATION WITH INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 06.1 FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE VERY GENUINENESS OF T HE ALLEGED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 12-9-2001 COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AT ANY STAGE. WHILE THE APPELLANT HAS N OT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY WHY THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT OF SALE C OULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS' ADMITTEDLY AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT AND HENCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE ONE. BESIDES, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, AHMEDABAD, MENT IONED ABOVE, SO AS TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INDEED E NTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT OF SALE IN THE YEAR 2001 ITSELF. THEREFORE, FIRSTLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADM IT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS STAGE. BESIDES, I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE APPELLANT EVEN ON MERITS. 06.2 FROM THE SAID AGREEMENT OF SALE, IT IS SEEN TH AT WHILE ENTERING INTO THE SAME, THE PURCHASER HAD PAID TO T HE DEVELOPERS A NOMINAL SUM OF RS.101/- ONLY AND THE AGREEMENT ONLY STIPULATED THAT THE FLAT PURCHASER H AD AGREED TO PAY THE DEVELOPERS ENTIRE SALE PRICE OF RS.34,70,000/- BEFORE EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT. AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, U/S 4 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, THE DEVELOPERS WERE, REQUIRED TO EXECUTE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THE SAI D FLAT AND ALSO TO REGISTER THE SAID AGREEMENT AFTER RECEIPT O F THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,70,0 00/-. SINCE THE FINAL SALE' DEED WAS EXECUTED ONLY ON 25- 1-2007, AND NO SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT OF THE AGREED CONSIDERAT ION OF 5 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS RS.34,70,000/- HAS BEEN GIVEN IN ANY OF THE DOCUMEN TS, IT CAN REASONABLY BE CONCLUDED THAT SUCH REGISTRATION WAS DONE ON 25-1-2007 ONLY AFTER THE PAYMENT OF ENTIRE CONSIDERATION. THE FACT THAT A MEAGRE PAYMENT HAS B EEN STATED AS MADE AS TOKEN EVEN IN THE ALLEGED AGREEME NT OF SALE AND THE FURTHER FACT THE SAID DOCUMENT IS NOT EVEN REGISTERED, CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE SAME IS A N AFTER THOUGHT AND NOT A GENUINE DOCUMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE AGREED CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.34,70,000/-, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT REGARDIN G SUCH CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . 06.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT AS PER THE SRO, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.L,21,94,000/- ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. SINCE THE REGISTRATION. WAS TO BE MADE ONLY AFTER PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION AND THE CLAIM OF ANY GENUINE AGREEMENT BEFORE 25-1-2007 HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED , EVEN WITHOUT HAVING RECOURSE TO SEC. SOC OF THE ACT , IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATIO N PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PROPERTY WAS SUCH FMV ONLY . UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE VERY CORRECTNESS OF TH E AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,70,000/- COULD NOT BE ESTABL ISHED BY ANY INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, I FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE ADOPTION OF SUCH FMV FOR ARRIVING AT THE ACT UAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAID FL AT AND BRINGING TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.87,24,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UJS.69B. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD ARE THEREFORE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 7. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US AN D HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 87,24,000/- U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE APPELLANT COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 87,24,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 6 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS 8. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THEIR ARGUME NTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE MADRAS BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF THULASI MANI AMMAL VS CIT & ANR (158 CTR 5) OBSERVING THAT THE REGISTRATI ON DEPARTMENT VALUE HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CON CLUSIVE EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SH RI K.PRATAP REDDY IN ITA NO 465 /H/03 THE HONBLE ITAT HAVE REITERATED T HAT SRO VALUE IS ONLY A GUIDELINE VALUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN TH E CASE OF C.NARENDRANATH ALSO, THE HONBLE ITAT UPHELD THE VI EW OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATE WAS NOT THE FMV. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE FIXED IN THE BASE VALUE RE GISTER OF THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BINDI NG UPON THE PARTIES AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAGAR CEMENTS LTD VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1989) 3 ALT 677. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION WAS ALSO REITERATED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- 1.P.SASHIDHAR VS SUB REGISTRAR (1992) 1 ALT 49 2. VALSREDDY BHARAT RAO VS RDO (1992) 1 ALT 591 9. THIS BEING THE CASE, HE SUBMITTED THE AO HAS NO BASIS TO ADOPT THE SUB-REGISTRARS VALUE AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MOST APPROPRIATE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES , PERUSED THE RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF HIS FINDING THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, REGI STRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WAS FIXED IN THE YEA R 1976, CANNOT BE 7 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS ADOPTED AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAGAR CERE MICS LTD (SUPRA) P. SASHIDHAR (SUPRA) AND VALSREDDY BUARAT RAO(SUPRA), HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT VALUE FIXED IN THE BASE VALUE REGISTRAR I S ONLY A GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE CANNOT BE ADOPT ED UNLESS IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY ARRIVED AT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE INSTANCES OF SALE IN THE ADJOINING AREA CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE T HAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE HAS NOT BEEN SC IENTIFICALLY ARRIVED AT. THE VALUE ARRIVED AT WAS FOR THE YEAR 1976 AND THIS WAS SOUGHT TO BE ADOPTED AS THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 BY THE AO. THIS , TO OUR MIND, IS NOT CORRECT. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF NRO AND LAD VS SRI SRI JAGANNADHASWAMYVARI TEMPLE, PALAKONDA, (APPEAL NO. 1654 OF 1988 DATED 26.03.1992) HELD THA T WHEN THE RATES N THE BASIC VALUE REGISTER HAVE BEEN FIXED ON AREA WISE , WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA, THE VALUES MENTIONED IN THE BASIC VALUE REGISTER CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE VALUES OF MARKET VALUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THUS, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ADOPTION OF THE GUI DELINE VALUE OF 1976 OF THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 12. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 69B, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 69B. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLO SED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.--WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULL ION. JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN AC QUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE E XCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME , AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AM OUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION O F THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YE AR. 8 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS 13. THE ADDITION UNDER THIS SECTION IS IN RESPECT O F ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY WHICH EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED I N THIS BEHALF. THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS DEEMED TO BE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AUTH ORITIES FOR REGISTERING THE TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THIS CONSIDERATION IS ONLY A DEEMED CONSIDERATION, NOTIONAL CONSIDERAT ION AND NOT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION THAT HAS PASSED BETWEEN THE BU YER AND SELLER. UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT PROVES THAT THE ACTUAL CONSID ERATION PASSED BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER IS MORE THAN THE AMOUN T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS INVESTMENT NOT DI SCLOSED IN THE BOOKS. 14. IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAT PURCHASED IN PUNE, MENTIONED IN THE SALE D EED IS ONLY RS. 34,70,000/- WHILE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AU THORITY WAS RS. 1,21,94,000/-. THE ASSESSEE SEEMS T HAVE EXPLAINED THAT THE FLAT WAS BOOKED IN 2001 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 34,70,000 /. EVENTHOUGH THE ACTUAL REGISTRATION TOOK PLACE ONLY IN 2007, ONLY T HE ORIGINALLY AGREED PRICE WAS PAID. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IN PARA 43 (EXTRACTED ABOVE).THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRO VIDE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND HENCE THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE STAMPING AUTHORITY AS THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AND MADE THE A DDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE U/S 69B. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROU GHT IN ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE CONSIDERATION THA T HAS ACTUALLY PASSED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUILDER WAS MOR E THAN RS. 34,70,000/-. THE SALE DEED TO WHICH BOTH THE SELLER AND THE BUYER (ASSESSEE) ARE PARTIES SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIES THAT THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PAID WAS ONLY RS. 34,70,000/-. THE SE LLER HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. HENCE WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, THE 9 ITA NO. 642/HYD/2013 D. SRINIVAS REVENUES CONTENTION THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMPING AUTHORITY IS ACTUALLY THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 87,24,000/- MADE U/S 69B BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMPING AUTHORITY AND THE SALE CONS IDERATION AS STATED TO BE PAID AS PER THE SALE DEED FOR WANT OF PROOF. MERELY ADOPTING THE REGISTRATION VALUE, DEPARTMENT VALUE IS INCORRECT A S DEPARTMENT VALUE HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE ONLY AND CANNOT BE REGARDED A S CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF THULASIAMMAL VS. CI T & ANR., 158 CTR 5. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/01/2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH JANUARY, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) SHRI D. SRINIVAS, 8-2-546/1, ROAD NO. 7, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.