COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 30th March, 2001, affirming the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Oct., 1999, whereby the addition of Rs. 10,84,835, made by the AO, in the assessment order dt. 29th Jan., 1999, was deleted.

(2.) FOR the present purposes, it would suffice to say that search .operation was undertaken on the residential premises of the assessee on 4th March, 1997. Then in response to notice issued under Section 158BC, the assessee filed return of income for the block period, declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 17,96,620. The present controversy, however, relates only to the additions made by the AO, on account of undisclosed investment in the agricultural lands and plots. The AO held the assessee to have purchased the agricultural lands and plots during the block period. Copies of agreements/registered deeds were seized, and from scrutiny thereof, it was observed, that the investment accounted for regarding purchase of these properties, is less than the market value taken by the registering authorities, for these properties, and the difference was worked out to Rs. 10,84,835. A tabulation, in this regard has been given, showing the consideration amount accounted for, the market value adopted by the Sub -Registrar, and the difference considered unaccounted for. These transactions relate to the period 12th June, 1991 to 27th Dec, 1996, and the additions made include additions of Rs. 15,500, Rs. 17,335, Rs. 18,000, Rs. 25,000, and so on, totaling to Rs. 10,84,835. The AO also considered the explanation. of the assessee, and made the addition, only on the basis of the valuation put by the registering authorities, on the basis of price index fixed by the State Valuation Authorities (District Level Committees rates), and the difference between the consideration amount and the value adopted by the Sub -Registrar has been added as above.

(3.) THE Revenue went in appeal and In this regard, the learned Tribunal relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO : [1981]131ITR597(SC) . so also on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO : [1992]193ITR770(All) , found that there is no rule of law, to the effect, that the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty is actual consideration passing between the parties to sale, it might be more or less. What is actual consideration that passes between the parties is the question of fact, to be determined in each case, having regard to facts and circumstances of that case, and that, in the case in hand, there is no material on record, in respect of various properties to establish, that the actual consideration passing between the parties was more than that declared by the assessee, and that, in such a situation, the value adopted by the Registrar for the purpose of charging the stamp duty cannot justifiably form basis for holding the same to be the actual consideration . to have passed between the parties, and in turn for making the addition of the difference between this value and the value declared by the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) was affirmed.