Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who has discussed the matter at great length at page 3 to 13 of his order. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the ground of the assessee by holding that reopening of the case u/s 147 was bad in law and same cannot be sustained. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT (A) are as under :-

" I have also carefully gone through the contents of the questioned documents and clarification given by the Asst. Commissioner stamp Ghaziabad (Reference : para 2.2). It is pertinent to note that report from Asst. Commissioner Stamps Ghaziabad supports assessee's contention. On the facts gathered in this regard, it is concluded that questioned document on which AO relied upon is a manipulated document whose authenticity is even doubted by the notifying authorities and this makes whole process of reopening as ab initio void. Assessee also contends that complete details in this regard have been provided to the AO, however the same were considered. Even during the appellate proceeding, a copy of assessee's submission has also been forwarded and remanded to the AO u/s 46A of the Act for his comments and rebuttal but same facts as appearing in the assessment order have been reiterated again.

• For comparison of properties located in the close vicinity, AO took into consideration of DLC Rate @ Rs. 50 per sq. yds for industrial area and Shalimar Extension Colony near Industrial ITO vs. Purushottam Dass Agarwal HUF area but completely ignored the land rates for Pasonda village within/outside Municipal limits.

In view of the above facts, the ld. CIT (A) held that the AO's action was based on manipulated document wherein DLC rate was mentioned as effective from 13.8.1980 whereas certified copy of the said notification mentions effective date from 1.4.1981. He further held that AO has not disclosed the source of the said questioned document. Therefore, additions made on the basis of manipulated documents cannot be sustained, hence he deleted the addition.

I have also carefully gone through the contents of the questioned documents and clarification given by the Asst. Commissioner stamp Ghaziabad (Reference : para 2.2). It is pertinent to note that report from Asst. Commissioner Stamps Ghaziabad supports assessee's contention. On the facts gathered in this regard, it is concluded that questioned document on which AO relied upon is a manipulated document whose authenticity is even doubted by the notifying authorities and this makes whole process of reopening as ab initio void. Assessee also contends that complete details in this regard have been provided to the AO, however the same were considered. Even during the appellate proceeding, a copy of assessee's submission has also been forwarded and remanded to the AO u/s 46A of the Act for his comments and rebuttal but same facts as appearing in the assessment order have been reiterated again.

ITO vs. Purushottam Dass Agarwal HUF 5.2. We may also like to add that the observation of the ld. CIT (A) that the findings of the AO were based on manipulated document, in our view, was unwarranted. When the assessee himself in the return of income and in valuation report has submitted that there is circle rate available as on 1.4.1981, then there is no question of manipulating any record as alleged by the ld. CIT (A). In view thereof, the said observation of the ld. CIT (A) is directed to be removed.