| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2730 2011 SLD 2730 (2011) 335 ITR 572 |
Delhi High Court
DIPAK MISHRA, C.J. AND MANMOHAN, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
DIPAK MISHRA, C.J. AND MANMOHAN, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Bajrang Lal Bansal
Law:
Section:
Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments - Block period 1-4-1989 to 17-12-1999 - A search was conducted at assessee's residence in course of which it was found that assessee had invested certain amount in a residential property - There was no evidence suggesting a higher valuation for residential property - However, Assessing Officer solely on basis of report of DVO made an addition of Rs. 99.33 lakhs under section 69B - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal deleted said addition - Whether primary burden of proof to prove under-statement or concealment of income is on revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon valuation given by DVO - Held, yes - Whether, in any event, opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon without books of account being rejected - Held, yes - Whether since, in instant case, no evidence much less incriminating evidence was found as a result of search to suggest that assessee had made any payment over and above consideration mentioned in its return, impugned addition was rightly deleted by authorities below - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 / 7 Taxman 13 (SC) (para 3), CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi) (para 6) and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 287 ITR 285/[2007] 163 Taxman 223 (Delhi) (para 6). Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Chandramani Bhardwaj for the Appellant. Ashwani Taneja andMs. Poonam Ahuja for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Manmohan, J. - The present appeal has been filed under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in IT(SSA) No. 262/Delhi/2004, for the block period 1-4-1989 to 17-12-1999. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that a search was conducted at the respondent-assessee's residence by the Income Tax Department. While unexplained cash of Rs. 68,943 and FDR of Rs. 54,943 was found during the search, no evidence was found suggesting a higher valuation for the property bearing No. A-156, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. However, theβ¦
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