Case Law Details
Rajendra Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Held: Assessee-individual had derived income from trading of various types, shapes, quantities of nut, bolts, screws and fasteners. Assessee was a general order suppliers catering to a vast number of customers and having various types of needs and requirements. He filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.58,2 1,680/-. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee had purchased two properties during the year. Since there was huge difference in the purchase price and circle rate, AO asked the assessee to explain with evidence as to how the properties were purchased at such a lower value as against the higher circle rate. AO had made addition under section 69. Since in the instant case assessee had purchased old tenanted properties situated in slum areas, filed copies of sale deeds of properties in the similar vicinity at about the same time which were sold at price below the circle rate, also filed valuation report of registered valuer and the seller of the properties had appeared before the AO and had confirmed to have sold the property at the price mentioned in the sale deed only and there was no material available before the revenue authorities that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act, IT Act, 1961.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2017 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2011-12.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
