Case Law Details
CIT Vs. Naveen Gera (Delhi High Court), ITA No. 736/2010 , Date of Decision: 17th August, 2010
We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make reference to DVO, had already been declared to the revenue by the respondent-assessee under VDIS.
We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further, the opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence (See K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468/2003 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. M/s. Dhariya Construction Company) decided by the Apex Court on 16th February, 2010, CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2009) 316 ITR 46, CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrapal, (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del.) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manoj Jain, (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Del.)).
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 736/2010
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
