S.69:Unexplained investments-Search and seizure-Valuation of property-Reference to District Valuation Officer-
Tribunal finding valuation based on incomparable sales hence addition as unexplained investment is held to
be not valid. (S.132, 153C)
The Assessing Officer referred the question of valuation of the properties purchased by the assessee to the District
Valuation Officer. The difference in the values of the two properties, as between that declared by the assessee and as opined by the District Valuation Officer, was added by the Assessing Officer under section 69. However, the
Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded, on facts, that there was no material found during the search to justify the reference to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of the properties. The Tribunal held that there must be some material to show that the investment made by the assessee was outside the books and in any event the District Valuation Officer's report was based on incomparable sales and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also held that the burden was on the Revenue to show that the real investment in the properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee and the burden had not been discharged by the Revenue. On appeal by revenue dismissing the appeal, the Court held that there was no material found in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the Assessing Officer's action in referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer for his opinion on valuation of the properties. Therefore, the valuation arrived at by the District Valuation Officer would be of no consequence. In any event, the Tribunal had also, on facts, held that the District Valuation Officer's valuation was based on incomparable sales, which is not permissible in law. Appeal of revenue was dismissed (A.Y. 2006-2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment