COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHIV NARAIN AGGARWAL DECD THR LRS

11 to 14# 7o L8.O8.20L1 Present: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Mr.Piyush Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent/assessee. +tTA 689/2010 rrA 690/2010 trA 702120Lo rrA 703/20r.0 (common orders) In all these cases, assessment was carried out under Section 1534 of the Income-Tax Act pursuant to search at the premises of the assessees carried out by the Department under Section 132 of the Act. While carrying out the assessment, the Assessing Officer found that one of the properties i.e. 101, Ground Floor, Bangala Sahib Road, New Delhi, was acquired by Shri Bhagirath Agrawal and Suraj Devi at a cost of t62,50,000/-. This property was rented to Indian Overseas Bank. The said property was purchased in the joint names with different shares given to different assessees. The matter was referred to the Valuation Cell of the Department under Section 142 (1A) of the Act. The Valuer valued the property at much higher rate than the consideration shown in the sale deed and on this basis additions were made in the hands of all these assessee, under Section 69 of the Act as'unexplained investment'. These additions were deleted by the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT (A) has been affirmed by the ITAT. Vide impugned order the ITAT Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

decided the cases of all joint owners who purchased the said property which includes Smt. Suraj Devi, Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, late Sh. Shiv Narain Aggarwal etc. The Department had filed appeal in the case of Smt. Suraj DeVi under Section 260-A of the Act to this Court which was registered as ITA SII1ZOLO and has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide orders dated 13th August, 2010. Following that order, appeals of other co-owners/assessees i.e. ITA 155112010, ITA I37O|2OL0 and ITA 1660I2OIO were also dismissed. Following those orders, these appeals are also dismissed as no question of law arises in these appeals. t\*\ 6\ n.rJr.ffil,J. 6\-e4 M.L. MEHTA, J, AUGUST I.8, 2OI.1 skb