Income-tax Officer,Ward-23(2), New Delhi. Vs. Mrs. Rita Kalra, M-73,2nd Floor, Greater Kailash-II New Delhi.
December, 14th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `F': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessment Year : 2007-08
Income-tax Officer, Mrs. Rita Kalra,
Ward-23(2), New Delhi. Vs. M-73, 2nd Floor,
PAN : AANPK4312N
Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR.
Respondent by : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 12-12-2012
Date of Pronouncement : 12-12-2012
PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12-10-2011
passed by the learned First Appellate Authority, New Delhi. The only
ground raised by the Revenue is that on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account
of valuation of property and undisclosed investment to the tune of
Rs.13,36,181/-, made for purchase of the said property.
2 ITA No.243/Del/2012
2. During hearing the learned Sr. DR Shri Rajesh Kumar supported the
assessment order and advanced his argument which is identical to the ground
raised. The addition so made by the Assessing Officer was strongly
defended by observing that it is a known fact that the market rate of the
property is always higher than which is shown, at the lesser rate, in the
registered document. On the other hand, Shri Kapil Goel, the learned
counsel for the assessee strongly defended the impugned order by submitting
that the AO has not brought on record any evidence proving that any
underhand dealing was done by the assessee or to prove that any money was
paid over and above the recorded amount in the sale deed.
3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee jointly
purchased property situated at 2nd Floor (M-73), Greater Kailash-II, New
Delhi for Rs.12,75,000/- (half share each). As per the Revenue the declared
value of the property was towards lower side, consequently, the transaction
was referred to the Valuation Officer to find out the value/investment. The
Valuation Officer opined the value at Rs.26,11,181/- vide letter dated 8-12-
2009. The Valuation Report was provided to the assessee to file objection.
The assessee vide communication dated 18th December, 2009 filed
objections which have been reproduced in Para 3.1 onwards of the
3 ITA No.243/Del/2012
assessment order. Thereafter, the objections of the assessee were forwarded
to the Valuation Officer. The comments of the Valuation Officer are also
reproduced in Para 3.1 of the assessment order, therefore, are not being
repeated being matter of record. Finally the amount of Rs.13,36,181/- was
added under sec. 69B read with sec. 142A of the Act.
3.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) examined the rival submissions, placed
reliance upon judicial pronouncement and deleted the addition which is
under challenge before this Tribunal. We find that the learned CIT(A) while
adjudicating the appeal of the assessee has duly considered the written
submissions of the assessee and the Valuation Report of the Departmental
Valuer. The building was constructed during the period from 1980 to 1989.
The construction was unauthorized and at the time of purchase in May 2006,
there was demolition drive by the MCD. The Valuation Officer compared
the purchase price of the property with the auction price of Rs.81,025/-
against the market value of Rs.34,100/- per sq. mtr. As per the scheduled
market rate, issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Department of Urban
Development (Land Division) dated 16.04.1999, the market rate of the land
were Rs.9,240/- per sq. mtr. for the period from 1.04.1998 to 31st March,
2000. After applying the cost of inflation index cost the value in 2006
comes to Rs.12,328/- per sq. mtr. The copy of the notification dated
4 ITA No.243/Del/2012
18.07.2006 of circle rates was also considered by the learned CIT(A). We
further find that at any stage no evidence was brought on record by the
Department either proving that any underhand exchange of money was done
while purchasing the property or any money beyond the amount declared in
the sale-deed effected between the parties. The decision from Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese, 131 ITR 597, from jurisdictional
High Court in Bajrang Lal Bansal, 335 ITR 572 and Suraj Devi, 320 ITR
604 along with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aneeta Singh (ITA
No.4324/Del/2009, order dated 30.08.2011) wherein it was held that in the
absence of any material showing that investment made in the property was
in excess of the stated amount in the title deed then sec.69B has no
application have already been considered in the impugned order. Under
these facts we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn in the impugned
4. Finally the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
5. This order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the
learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on
12th December, 2012.
( B.C. MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
5 ITA No.243/Del/2012
Dated: 12th December, 2012.
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
5. DR By Order
*mg Deputy Registrar, ITAT.