Law:

Section:

Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investment - Assessment year 1997-98 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee purchased three properties - Assessing Officer opined that cost of acquisition of properties as shown in sale deed was much lower than fair market value of those properties - He, thus, referred matter to District Valuation Officer (DVO) who submitted his report as per which value of properties was higher - On basis of report of DVO, Assessing Officer made additions to assessee's income under section 69B - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition on ground that apart from repot of DVO there was no evidence on record that some extra consideration was paid by assessee for acquiring properties over and above consideration stated in sale deed - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether in order to make addition under section 69B, opinion of DVO per se is not sufficient and other corroborated evidence is required - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, authorities below were justified in deleting impugned addition - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] CASES REFERRED TO K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 / 7 Taxman 13 (SC) (para 4), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi[2010] 328 ITR 604 (Delhi) (para 8), CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) (para 9) andSmt. Amar Kumari Surana v. CIT [1997] 226 ITR 344 /[1996] 89 Taxman 544 (Raj.) (para 9). Abhishek Maratha for the Appellant. O.S. Bajpai and B.K. Singh for the Respondent. JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri, J - This appeal was admitted on the following two questions of law : "1. Whether the Assessing Officer was right in referring the question of fair market value of the property sold by the assessee to the District Valuation Officer in terms of section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') ? alternatively, was the Assessing Officer in terms of section 48 read with section 45(5) of the Act bound to accept the value stated in the registered sale deed ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the District Valuation Officer, the Revenue had to prove that the assessee had in fact received extra…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492