Issue before Court:
- Whether tribunal erred in confirming order passed by CIT (A) without considering report of DVO sought by AO u/s 142 A of the Act.
Brief Facts:
- Search & Seizure operation was carried out in Wing Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. group cases in which assessee was covered.
- AO noticed that assessee along with his brothers jointly purchased property in Punjabi Bagh Delhi. AO suspected it as case of under valuation and referred matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the correct value of the property.
- DVO declared a much higher value of the said property and thus on the basis of his report AO assessed assessee’s share more than declared by assessee and he made addition u/s 69 B holding the same as undisclosed investment.
- AO again noted that assessee declared less fair rent of shop at chandni chowk. AO assessed the fair rent on basis of 6 % of the current value of the shop. In this way AO added the difference between the values of fair rent u/s 23 (4) (b).
- Both CIT (A) & Tribunal favoured assessee in appeal.
Contention of the revenue:
- Assessee is not able to produce seller and even he was not aware of the whereabout of the seller. Assessee at his own convenience trying to mould the facts to cover up the issue and failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding his claim.
- During search documentary evidences were come out which show that assessee and his family members were investing their unaccounted money in properties.
- The property was lying in one of the posh areas of the capital and declared value was quite low in comparison to prevailing rates which have been evidenced by the valuation report.
- The valuation made by the valuer in no way can be termed as illegal and without jurisdiction as specific reference has been made to him to value the property and valuer is an authorized officer to estimate the value of the Property.
Contention of the assessee:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
