×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
These are four appeals filed by the Revenue as well as two assessees against two separate orders of the ld. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), both dated 28.03.2013 in Appeal Nos. 522/10-11 in the case of Shri Abhinav Arora and 530/10-11 in the case of Smt. Ranju Arora, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09.passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi.
2. Since the transaction which gave rise to the capital gains, which is the subject matter in all the four appeals, is one and the same, we deem it just and proper to dispose of all these appeals by way of common order.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Abhinav Arora is the son of Smt. Ranju Arora and have purchased a residential ploy No.8, Kachnar Marg, DLF, Gurgaon on 1.6.2007 in their name for a consideration of Rs.1.55 crores. Such property was, however, valued at Rs.7,40,95,000/- as on 3.11.2007 by M/s M.L. Arora/Arun Aggarwal for the purpose of obtaining loan from the Axis Bank.
4. There was a search on the Dawat Group of cases u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 10.02.2009 wherein it was found that another property at A-25/9, DLF, Gurgaon was purchased by some members of the Dawat group at Rs.1.80 crores as per sale deed and Rs.5,66,40,600/- was taken a money paid in cash on the basis of a seized document. Though there was no incriminating material relating to property No.8, Kachnar Marg, DLF, Gurgaon, ld. AO based on the documents recovered relating to property No.A/25/9, Gurgaon drew an inference that the purchase price at 8, Kachnar Marg was Rs 5,92,76,000/- i.e. Rs.7,40,95,000/- reduced by 20% as on 1 6.2007. On this premise, ld. AO took the sale consideration at Rs.5,92,76,000/- and reduced the same by Rs.1.55 crore being the registered amount and brought the balance of Rs.4,37,76 000/- as on money having paid in cash over and above the registered amount. Ld. AO apportioned the said amount between the mother and son and made an addition of Rs.2,18,88,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of each assessee.
5. Being aggrieved by the said addition, both the mother and son preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). They have submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the query was raised by the ld. AO at the end of the time barring date and, therefore, they could not produce certain documents before the ld. AO to substantiate their claim that the sale consideration was only Rs.1.55 crores and nothing more and also that the valuation of Rs.7,40,95,000/- was made by M/s M.L. Aggarwal only for the purpose of obtaining loan from Axis Bank and it has nothing to do with the sale consideration received. They produced before the ld. CIT(A) the valuation report of the property dated 1.12.2011 showing the same at Rs.1,55,61,000/- @ Rs.18,200/- per sq. mt and also the copy of the sale deed of adjoining plot no.3 to show price at Rs.20,460/ per sq.mt.
6. Learned CIT(A) while forwarding the documents to the ld. AO called for the remand report. Learned AO during the remand proceedings recorded the statement of Shri M.L. Aggarwal on 2.5.2012. It was stated by Mr. M.L. Aggarwal that the valuation of the property in question was done by them for the purpose of bank loan as is evidenced by the confirmation received from the Axis Bank to establish that the said property was provided as a collateral security for extending the loan.
7. Learned CIT(A) considered the valuation report and also the submissions of the assessee on that aspect. It was submitted by the assessee that the valuation report which was relied upon by the AO was not reflecting the correct valuation because it was prepared for the purpose of obtaining higher amount of loan. Assessee further argued that in the absence of any incriminating material obtained at the time of search in relation to the property in question, it is not