SMT. SURINDER KAUR,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

आदेश / O R D E R

PER KUL BHARAT, J.M:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order of the assessing officer in referring the matter of cost of construction and plot incurred by the builders to the District Valuation Officer on the house No.47 in Pebble Bay Dream Villa, Bhopal.

on or before the date of hearing.

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press ground Nos.1 &

2. Thus, ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.4 is general in nature which needs no separate adjudication. of 2017 3 Smt. Surinder Kaur

3. So far as ground no.3 with regard to the addition of Rs.2,27,609/- towards the unexplained investment in the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this very Bench passed on 23.8.2019 in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year i.e. 2012-13 in ITA No.98/Ind/2017. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered.

“3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a search action was carried out in the business premises of the assessee as well as premises of other concerns on 30.11.2012. The notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was issued. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of of 2017 4 Smt. Surinder Kaur income. During the course of assessment, the A.O. observed that assessee had made investment in construction of house located at H.No.47, Pebble Bay Dream Villa, Katara Hills, Bhopal. The said property was purchased by the assessee on 31.3.2012. The A.O. did not find the explanation as provided by the assessee acceptable, therefore, he made addition of Rs.11,47,348/- as undisclosed investment. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal and decided the issue against the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The submissions of the assessee are as under:- of 2017 5 Smt. Surinder Kaur of 2017 6 Smt. Surinder Kaur of 2017 7 Smt. Surinder Kaur

4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of the valuation of the DVO.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that there is a difference of only 12% between the value estimated by the DVO and disclosed by the assessee. Under these facts, the addition should not have been sustained. It is also submitted that the difference in the value is due to the fact that the D.V.O. adopted different method than adopted by the assessee. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittar (2013) 30 taxmann.com 357/213 Taxman 54 and also the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nishi Mehra (2015) 56 taxmann.com 89/232 Taxman 111 to buttress the contention that the addition should not be sustained merely on the basis of DVO's report as no material was found during the course of search. Considering the fact that in the case of CIT Vs. Omprakash Bagria (HUF) 287 ITR 523 (MP) the valuation disclosed by the assessee and adopted by the DVO was more than 150%. But in the present case, the difference is merely 12%. The revenue has not brought any material to suggest that the assessee had in fact made investment in the construction of house as estimated by the DVO. In the present case, the assessment is being made in pursuance to the search conducted by the revenue. Therefore, relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Nishi Mehra (supra). We hold that under the facts of the present case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. We therefore, direct the A.O. to delete

ITA No.273 of 2017 9 Smt. Surinder Kaur addition of Rs.11,47,348/-. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed."

5. Taking a consistent view as no change into facts and circumstances is pointed out, the ground no.3 raised in the assessee’s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to delete the addition.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 14.1.2020.