CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0679 (Del-HC) : (2013) 051 (I) ITCL 0201 : (2013) 351 ITR 0020 : (2013) 087 DTR 0069 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69 Investment in propertyAssessing officer referred valuation of properties purchased by assessee during relevant year to District Valuation Officer (DVO) and made addition under section 69 of the difference amount. On disputing, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal deleted the addition holding that DVO's deposit was based on incomparable sales. Held : ,/b>Reference to DVO for valuation of properties was not justified as there was no material found during search and seizure operation to justify assessing officer's action, then the valuation arrived at by DVO was of no consequence. Further, the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee, was also not discharged. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69 IN The DELHI High Court Badar Durrez & R.V. Easwar CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal ITA 42/2013 23 January, 2013 Appellant by : Sanjeev Rajpal Respondent by : None JUDGMEMT *Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)* This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 29-6-2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 4460/Del/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The facts are that the respondent/assessee had filed a return declaring an income of t 39,90,410 on 18-7-2006. Subsequently, a search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 26-4-2007 as also a survey operation under section 133A in the premises of A. K. Capital Services Limited and its group companies as also in the premises of the Directors of those companies and their relatives. Thereafter, a notice under section 153C of the said Act was issued on 7-10-2009. A response was issued by the assessee by their letter dated 13-10-2009 and the return already filed on 18-7-2006 was requested to be treated as the return in response to the said notice under section 153C. 3. The assessing officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings, considered the valuation of three properties which had been purchased by the assessee in the relevant year. The three properties included two office premises at Ahmedabad and one commercial property at Kolkata. The assessing officer referred the question of valuation of the said properties to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO submitted his report on 14-12-2009 in respect of the Ahmedabad properties and on 24-12-2009 in respect on the Kolkata property. As per the said report, the DVO has valued the said properties as under : SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0679 (Del-HC) : (2013) 051 (I) ITCL 0201 : (2013) 351 ITR 0020 : (2013) 087 DTR 0069

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69 Investment in propertyAssessing officer referred valuation of properties purchased by assessee during relevant year to District Valuation Officer (DVO) and made addition under section 69 of the difference amount. On disputing, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal deleted the addition holding that DVO's deposit was based on incomparable sales. Held : ,/b>Reference to DVO for valuation of properties was not justified as there was no material found during search and seizure operation to justify assessing officer's action, then the valuation arrived at by DVO was of no consequence. Further, the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee, was also not discharged.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69

IN The DELHI High Court

Badar Durrez & R.V. Easwar

CIT v. Abhinav Kumar Mittal

ITA 42/2013

23 January, 2013

Appellant by : Sanjeev Rajpal

Respondent by : None

JUDGMEMT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 29-6-2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 4460/Del/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07.

2. The facts are that the respondent/assessee had filed a return declaring an income of t 39,90,410 on 18-7-2006. Subsequently, a search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 26-4-2007 as also a survey operation under section 133A in the premises of A. K. Capital Services Limited and its group companies as also in the premises of the Directors of those companies and their relatives. Thereafter, a notice under section 153C of the said Act was issued on 7-10-2009. A response was issued by the assessee by their letter dated 13-10-2009 and the return already filed on 18-7-2006 was requested to be treated as the return in response to the said notice under section 153C.

3. The assessing officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings, considered the valuation of three properties which had been purchased by the assessee in the relevant year. The three properties included two office premises at Ahmedabad and one commercial property at Kolkata. The assessing officer referred the question of valuation of the said properties to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO submitted his report on 14-12-2009 in respect of the Ahmedabad properties and on 24-12-2009 in respect on the Kolkata property. As per the said report, the DVO has valued the said properties as under :