High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Lahsa Construction (P.) Ltd.
Assessment Year : 1999-2000
Section : 142A
Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 340 Of 2011
August  12, 2013
JUDGMENT
1. Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) impugns order dated 25.06.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case ‘M/s. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd.’ on the ground of perversity. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 1999-2000. (incorrectly mentioned in the impugned order as assessment year 2006-07).
2. Property in question bearing No.C-20, NDSF, South Ex., Part-II, New Delhi had two sellers. The respondent/assessee -Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. had sold 50% share of-the property in favour of Mrs. Madhu Arora, whereas the second group of owners consisting of four individuals had sold 50% of the property in favour of Mrs. Madhu Arora and her husband Mr. Om Prakash Arora.
3. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent that Revenue had accepted the order of the Tribunal in the case of said four individuals as addition was made solely on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. This statement is not controverted or accepted by the counsel for the Revenue as he has no information.
4. The Departmental Valuation Officer had opined that the value of the property at the time of purchase was Rs.2,84,72,600/- and this became the basis of the addition made by the assessing officer. The respondent/assessee had disclosed sale consideration of as Rs.39,00,000/- for sale of their 50% share, in the property to Mrs. Madhu Arora. Mrs. Madhu Arora and Mr. Om Prakash Arora paid an amount of Rs.44.00.000/- to the four individual co-.owners for purchase of the balance 50% share. Thus, in all they had shown sale consideration of Rs.83,00,000/-, instead of Rs.2,84,72,600/-, as opined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. This property was sold in the period relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. No addition was made by the Assessing Officer on this sale consideration.
5. Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 has been followed.
6. In view of the aforesaid position order of the Tribunal does not require Interference. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation :Â 357 ITR 671]
