Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Suraj Devi on 13 August, 2010

Daljeet Singh, New Delhi vs Assessee on 18 May, 2015

"....the assessing officer solely relied upon the report of the District Valuation Officer. Apart from this, there was admittedly no evidence or material in his possession to come to the conclusion that the assessee had paid extra consideration over and above what was stated in the sale deed. This very issue has come up for consideration before this court repeatedly and after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), the aforesaid proposition of law is reiterated time and again. For our benefit, we may refer to the latest judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi), wherein this court had held that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. It was also held that then opinion of the Valuation Officer per se was not information and could not be relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had not been done in that case."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer -1 vs Smt. Kamala Ojha 20 Wps/4558/2019 Rohit ... on 25 June, 2019

The judgment of the Supreme Court has been adverted to by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (supra). The question before this Court was not with regard to the validity of the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the report of the DVO. There, on the basis of a search conducted in the premises of the assessee, in which a registered purchase deed for a property was recovered, the Assessing Officer, suspecting that the market value of the property was more than the disclosed purchase price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report of the DVO, per se, is not information and cannot be relied upon without the books of account maintained by the assessee being rejected. While coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19.10.2009 in Civil Appeal No.6973/2009, in which case the Supreme court had held that without rejecting the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer could not have referred the matter to the DVO for the purpose of making an addition for undisclosed investment. It will be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Smt. Suraj Devi‟s case was not concerned with the validity of a 21 WA No.293 of 2017 reference made to the DVO under Section 55A of the Act for the purpose of estimating the fair market value of a property as on 01.04.1981 for computing the capital gains nor was the Court concerned with the validity of a reference made to the DVO under Section 55A, which was pending when the assessment order was passed (proceedings were completed). This judgment does not touch upon the point raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 47 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Acc Ltd. vs District Valuation Officer And Ors. on 21 May, 2012

The judgment of the Supreme Court has been adverted to by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (supra). The question before this Court was not with regard to the validity of the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the report of the DVO. There, on the basis of a search conducted in the premises of the assessee, in which a registered purchase deed for a property was recovered, the Assessing Officer, suspecting that the market value of the property was more than the disclosed purchase price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report of the DVO, per se, is not information and cannot be relied upon without the books of account maintained by the assessee being rejected. While coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on the judgment of the W.P. (C) 3795/2011 Page 11 of 13 Supreme Court dated 19.10.2009 in Civil Appeal No.6973/2009, in which case the Supreme court had held that without rejecting the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer could not have referred the matter to the DVO for the purpose of making an addition for undisclosed investment. It will be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Smt. Suraj Devi‟s case was not concerned with the validity of a reference made to the DVO under Section 55A of the Act for the purpose of estimating the fair market value of a property as on 01.04.1981 for computing the capital gains nor was the Court concerned with the validity of a reference made to the DVO under Section 55A, which was pending when the assessment order was passed (proceedings were completed). This judgment does not touch upon the point raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi vs Assessee on 29 June, 2012

In this decision a reference of its earlier decision by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi , (supra) has been made expressing the similar view. In that case also no evidence much less incriminating evidence was found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered purchase deed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lord Buddha Educational Society, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 March, 2023

• CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, • ClT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), • CIT v. Smt. Suroj Devi[2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi)(Mag) • CIT v. Bojrong Lal Bansal [20111 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag)/12 taxmann.com 88 (De/hi) • It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Arvind Khanna, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

8. The second judgment cited by the Ld. A.R. is the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of CIT Vs Suraj Devi (supra). In that case, the assessee had made investment in property and such investment was duly declared in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. The addition was made by the A.O. on the basis of report of DVO but the addition was deleted by the Tribunal. One very vital fact of that case is that the property in question was in possession of a tenant and this vital aspect had not been considered by the DVO and the A.O. But irrespective of this aspect, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in that case that it is settled law that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible I.T.A. No. 1117/Del/2010 6/6 to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. It is also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the opinion of the DVO per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon without the books of accounts being rejected which has not been done in that case. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in that case that no substantial question of law arises in that case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ??? ... vs Shri Puneet Sabharwal 2/6080, Dev ... on 3 December, 2010

For our benefit, we may refer to the latest judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi 328 ITR 604, wherein this Court had held that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to reply upon the valuation given by the DVO. It was also held that the opinion of the Valuation Officer, per se, was not an information and could not be relied upon without the books of accounts being rejected which had not been done in that case.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 36 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next