Case Law Details
Nirmal Kumar Minda Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
The ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.37.50 lacs u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of 6 paintings found at the residence of the assessee. The underlying facts in the impugned issue are that 6 paintings were found at the time of search which were got valued by the department from two different valuers. The assessee has also obtained valuation report independently valuation.
The AO adopted the valuation made by the yellow flute whereas the CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the valuation of Delhi Art Gallery against this decision of the CIT(A) both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us.
The Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that no adverse findings have been given on the valuation report of the It is the say of the Counsel that the departmental valuation officer has not even pointed out the year of paintings.
The Counsel further stated that one of the paintings from Paresh Maity was purchased by account payee cheque. In so far as the source of investment is concerned the Counsel pointed out that the house hold expenses and the withdrawal chart exhibited at pages 202 to 204 of the paper book and stated that the huge withdrawals for house hold expenses are sufficient to cover the investment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
