PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DHARMAJA INFRASTRUCTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant revenue has challenged the order dated 6.6.2018 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in ITA No.1862/Ahd/2015 by proposing the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The assessment year is 2011-12. The respondent assessee had purchased two properties for a consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000/- and Rs.1,35,00,000/- respectively. However, the value adopted by the stamp duty authority as per the market rate was Rs.2,55,45,000/- and Rs.2,22,57,500/- respectively. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not give any explanation with regard to the difference of amount of Rs.1,88,02,500/- and he, therefore, considered such amount to be income from undisclosed sources not reflected in the books of account and treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal by holding that the Assessing Officer had relied upon the jantri rate without bringing any material on record to prove that the assessee, in fact, had made investment over and above that recorded in the books of account. While doing so, the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in DCIT v. Virjibhai Kalyanbhai Kukadia, 138 ITD 255, wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 50C of the Act cannot be applied for making addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal who upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel very fairly invited the attention of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Sarjan Realities Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxman 112 (Gujarat) wherein the court has held thus:-