Arvind Khanna, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax
6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the
material on record, have gone through the orders of authorities
below and the judgments cited by Ld. A.R. After going through the
assessment order, we find that this is not the case of the A.O. that
any document or adverse material was found by him suggesting any
extra payment by the assessee over and above the declared
amount of consideration for purchase of shares in question. As per
the A.O., the matter was referred to the Valuation Officer i.e. DVO to
determine the correct value of the property which was the only
known asset of the company TDPL. Hence, it is apparent that there
was no adverse material available on record to establish/suggest
any extra payment by the assessee to acquire these shares. The
facts of the present case are identical to the facts in the case of
DCIT Vs Shri Vinod Singhal (supra). In that case also, the assessee
I.T.A. No. 1117/Del/2010
5/5
purchased a property for consideration of ` 9.50 lacs which was
valued by the A.O. at ` 35.20 lacs on the basis of valuation report
given by the DVO and made addition of this difference amount.
Such addition was not found sustainable by the tribunal in that case
because there was no adverse material available on record to
establish/suggests that the assessee had made expenditure more
than what was declared and disclosed by him as a consideration to
purchase the said asset. Hence, by respectfully following this
Tribunal decision, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order
of Ld. CIT(A) in the present case.