CIT Vs. DINESH JAIN HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) and the following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised for our consideration.

(2.) THE assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and contended that there was no evidence to show that it had in fact paid anything more than the price declared by it for the properties, that the conclusion of the assessing officer to the contrary was based purely on surmises and conjectures and not on any cogent material, that even the search did not yield any material or evidence to show any undisclosed investment by the assessee. It was argued that at any rate the value based on rent capitalization method as prescribed in the Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act was only a notional figure of fair market value of the property which was different from the price paid for the property and that in these circumstances the addition made by the Assessing Officer based upon the provisions of Section 69B of the Act was arbitrary and had absolutely no basis. It was also submitted on the basis of certain specific instances that even on comparing the market rates for the properties, there was no understatement of the consideration.

(3.) IN respect of flat No. 303 and 309, Palm Court also a similar line of reasoning was adopted.