It is noticed that the ancestral property was received by two brothers and the same was divided by two brothers by entering into an agreement between the two brothers. The assessee sold his share and shown the capital gain in the hands of HUF capacity. Whatever, the interest was received on sale consideration etc., the same was offered for taxation in his HUF capacity. The return was filed with the department, copy of the same is placed at page 70A along with computation of income as well as balance sheet. The same has been accepted by the department.
It is not in dispute that salary and wages accrue daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly as per the contract of the employment. This is so as services is rendered in praesenti, the liability of the employer to compensate the employees for the services rendered also accrues in praesenti. A perusal of the Orders of the lower authorities show that what is actually in dispute is the quantification of compensation. As the assessee is a PSU, the pay revision depends upon the decision of the Government.
The law seems to be well settled that unless and until there is some other evidence to indicate that extra consideration had flowed in the transaction of purchase of property, the report of the DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. In the present case there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. In these circumstances, the question which has been framed is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed.
