COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VINOD SINGHAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 482/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal versus . VINOD SINGHAL ?.. Respondent Through: Ms Rani Kiyala for Dr Rakesh Gupta CORAM: HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . O R D E R 05.05.2010 CM No.5179/2010 . Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 482/2010 . This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.3647/Del/2008 in respect of the Assessment Year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer has made an addition in respect of unaccounted investment by merely relying upon the DVO?s report with regard to a share in property (D-45, First Floor Hauz Khas, New Delhi) purchased by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided against the Revenue and held that the addition could not be made only on the basis of DVO report unless and until there was evidence to show that something over and above the amount shown in the registered sale deed had been paid by the assessee to the seller. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO: 131 ITR 597(SC) as also on the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi: 316 ITR 46. In the latter decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that there must be a finding of the Revenue that the assessee had received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed. This is the primary burden which has been cast upon the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to the valuation as given by the DVO. In the absence of the burden having gone into being discharged, it was not permissible in law to make any inferences against the assessee. The Tribunal has merely followed the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. There is no question of law involved in the present case what to speak of a substantial question of law. . . The appeal is dismissed. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J . . . V.K. JAIN, J MAY 05, 2010/bg $ 8