DCIT, New Delhi v. Smt Nirmal Rani, Gurgaon

ITA 2786/DEL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 278620114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAIPK8710F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2786/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent Smt Nirmal Rani, Gurgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 07-07-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 04-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.2786/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SMT. NIRMAL RANI CENTRAL CIRCLE-11 NEW DELHI. VS. 54 SUKH CHAIN MARG DLF PH-1 GURGAON (HARYANA). PAN: AAIPK8710F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SATYEN SETHI ADVOCATE. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3 0.03.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN AN APPEAL ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 21 476/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE PURC HASE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND VALUE ASCERTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION 2 OFFICER IN A REFERENCE UNDER SEC. 142A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HER RETURN ON 6.4.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS .3 06 844/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY THE AO. THE AO THEREFORE ISSUED A NOTICE AND QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 143(2) ON 22.9.2009. THE ASSESSE ES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FURNI SHED RELEVANT DETAILS AS REQUIRED. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICE D BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN PROPERTIES DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A REFERENCE U/S 142A OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE AO TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF AC QUISITION OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELE VANT YEAR:- (A) RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF 160 SQ. YD. AT SECTOR-4A DHARU HERA RAJASTHAN. (B) RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF 311.11 SQ. YD. AT UPPALS SOUT HEND SOHNA ROAD GURGAON. 4. THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 18.1 2.2009 ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES AS UNDER:- PROPERTY DETAILS PURCHASE VALUE REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE FMV DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FMV BY THE VO AND VALUE REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF 160 SQ. YD. RS.2 00 000/- RS.5 12 000/- RS.3 12 000/- RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF 311.11 SQ. YD. RS.16 56 652/- RS.25 45 030/- RS.8 88 378/- 3 5. SINCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CONSIDERATIO N SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO THE A O ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3 12 000/- AND RS.8 88 378/- RESPECTIVELY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN REPLY THERETO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION:- A) THE PLOT AT DHARUHERA WAS ACQUIRED FOR A TOTAL PURC HASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 78 902/- OUT OF WHICH RS.2 00 000/- WAS PAID BY THE ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE AND THE BALANCE A MOUNT OF RS.78 902/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER ACQUISIT ION. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THIS REG ARD WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY ME AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. B) THE DVO HAS OUT RIGHTLY APPLIED THE CIRCLE RATE OF RS.3 200/- PER SQ. YARD FOR THE PROPERTY AT DHARUHE RA WITHOUT CONSIDERING CERTAIN FACTORS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SUBMISSIONS LIKE SMALL SIZE OF THE PLOT SOUTH FACING PLOT POOR SURROUNDINGS AND CROSSING OF HIGH TENSION ELECTRICITY CABLES ETC. C) IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY AT UPPALS SOUTHEND ALSO T HE DVO HAS APPLIED CIRCLE RATE WITHOUT CONSIDERING CERTAIN NEGATIVE POINTS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SUBMISSI ON LIKE HEAVY TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION NARROW APPROACH ROA D CLOSENESS TO PUBLIC HEALTH WATER TANK ADJOINING PL OTS LYING VACANT NOT AN EAST FACING PLOT ETC. D) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED VALUATION REPORTS FROM M/S. R.S. YADAV & ASSOCIATES FOR THE ABOVE TWO PROPERTIES AS PER WHICH THE PROPERTY AT DHARUHERA HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS.2 10 000/- AND THAT OF UPPALS SOUTHEND IS VALUE D AT RS.17 70 000/-. 4 6. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WERE EXAMINED AND CONSIDER ED BY THE AO AND FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE MADE BY HIM:- A) THE DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES FOR PROPERTIES ARE ARRIVE D AT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND SA ME ARE FIXED SCIENTIFICALLY. THEREFORE THE EMPHASIS GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NEGATIVE FACTORS HAVE NO MERIT AS T HE SAME HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN FIXING THE DISTRICT CIRCLE RATE. B) THE DVO HAS APPLIED THE DISTRICT CIRCLE RATE FOR AR RIVING AT RESPECTIVE FAIR MARKET VALUE WHICH IS A PROPER AND SUPERIOR METHOD. C) MERELY BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR WOULD NOT MEAN THAT ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN NOT BE TAKEN OR THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVE ANY UNDER HAND DEALING BY THE ASSESSEE. D) THE AO HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE INSERTION OF A N EW CLAUSE IN SECTION 56 OF THE ACT DEALING WITH SUCH D IFFERENCE BETWEEN REPORTED SALE CONSIDERATION AND DISTRICT CI RCLE RATES. E) THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUATION OF FICER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY VAGUE INASMUCH AS THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT VALUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMPARATIVE SALE INSTANCES BUT HE VALUED TH E PROPERTY AT A VALUE MORE THAN THAT OF COMPARATIVE S ALES INSTANCES WITHOUT GIVING ANY BASIS. 5 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID REASONS THE AO MA DE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.2 33 098/- (RS.3 12 000/- - RS.78 902/-) AND RS.8 88 378/- AS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE A D ETAILED SUBMISSION AND ARGUMENTS AS NARRATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 3.1(A) TO 3.1(I) AT PAGES 2 TO 9 OF HIS ORDER. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AN D THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSE RVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.1(A) THE WRITTEN AS WELL AS ORAL SUBMISSION(S) O F THE APPELLANT AND FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ORDER OF AS SESSMENT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE AO HAS MADE AD DITION OF RS.11 21 476/- ON THE BASIS DVO REPORT BASED ON THE DC RATE. THE AO WAS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHAT PROMPTED HIM TO SEEK THE VALUATION REPORT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY FRO M THE PURCHASER AND OR SELLER IN AS MUCH AS WITHOUT BRING ING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THAT THE PURCHASE CON SIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER STATED ESPECIALL Y UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ONE OF THE CASE NO SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND IN OTHER CASE THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED AT T HE LESSER PRICE THEN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 4.1(B) RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON NAVNEET KUMAR THAKKAR VS. ITO (2007) 112 TTJ (JD) 76 CIT VS. SHIVKAMI CO. PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 71 (SC). 6 K.P. VERGHESE VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) CIT VS. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) 261 ITR 664 (DEL.2003) ITO VS. SMT. ANSHU JAIN (2010) 36 SOT 263 (JP). 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE RATE S FOR THE PLOTS PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AND ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS NEGATIVE FACTOR S WHICH AHS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE DVO WHILE MAKING ITS REPORT. MOREOVER THE DVO HAS NEVER CITED ANY COMPARABLE IN STANCES TO JUSTIFY ITS STAND. HE HAS SIMPLY ADOPTED THE DC RATE OF THE AREA WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR APPLYING THE SAM E. AT THE SAME TIME THE AO HAS ALSO IGNORED THE GOVT. APPROVE D VALUER REPORT CONTAINING THEREIN VARIOUS NEGATIVE CHARACT ER OF THE PLOTS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO CITING CO MPARABLE INSTANCES TO JUSTIFY ITS STAND THAT THE PLOTS IN TH E SAID AREA ARE BEING SOLD AND REGISTERED AT MUCH LOWER PRICE THEN THE DR RATE. THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER HAS ALSO GIVEN REASON FOR ADOPTING THE LESSER RATE THEN THE DC RATE. 4.3 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO W AS NOT JUSTIFIED THAT MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1121476/-. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED AS A RESULT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 IS ALLOWED. 11. HENCE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS MA DE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPA RTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO A VALID AND LEGAL REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 142A OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGH T OF SEC. 142A IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATER IAL TO JUSTIFY UNDER 7 STATEMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. SHE FURTHER C ONTENDED THAT THE REFERENCE MADE U/S 142A WAS VALID AND NOTHING HAS B EEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OR BY THE ASSESSEE TO RENDER THE SAM E TO BE VOID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEAR NED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE DVOS FINDING AND THE VALUE ASCERTAINED BY HIM. SHE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 21 476/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH ARE NARRATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 3.1(A) TO 3.1(I) AT PAGES 2 TO 9 OF HIS ORDER. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 15. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED BY WAY OF PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL PLOTS SITUATED AT DHARUHERA AND SOHNA R OAD GURGAON RESPECTIVELY. THE PURCHASE VALUE SHOWN IN THE SALE DOCUMENT OF RS.2 00 000/- AND RS.16 56 652/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE SUM OF RS.78 902/- IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PROP ERTY OVER AND ABOVE THE SUM OF RS.2 00 000/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ORIGIN AL ALLOTTEE. THE AO HAD REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO TO ESTIMATE THE MARK ET VALUE OF THESE PLOTS. 8 THE DVO ESTIMATED THE VALUE BY APPLYING DISTRICT CI RCLE RATES APPLICABLE FOR RELEVANT AREAS. THE DVO DETERMINED THE VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY EQUAL TO THE VALUE BASED ON DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES SPECIFIED BY T HE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY. IT IS WELL-KNOWN THAT DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES ARE FIXED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. U/S 50C(1) THE FULL CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS BEING LA ND OR BUILDING OR BOTH SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESS ABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAM P DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. HOWEVER SEC.50C(1) SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND IN THAT CASE THE AO SHALL REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER. FROM THI S PROVISION IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY MAY VARY FROM THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY APPLYING CIRCLE RATE BY APPLYING RATE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. HE HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY AS PER THE METHOD OF VALUATION PROVIDED IN THAT REGARD. HOWEV ER ON THE OTHER HAND 9 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT FROM TH E VALUATION OFFICER WHO DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOU NT COMPARATIVE SALE INSTANCES. THE SALE INSTANCES REFERRED TO BY THE R EGISTERED VALUER WERE TRANSACTED AT THE VALUE LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE APPROVED VALUER HAS VALUED THE VALUE OF FIRST FLOOR AT RS.2 10 000/- BY APPLYING THE LAND RATE OF RS.1800/ - PER SQ. YARD AFTER CITING THE SALE INSTANCES WHERE THE LAND WERE SOLD AT RS.1 100/- PER SQ. YARD. IN RESPECT OF SECOND PROPERTY REGISTERED VALUER HAS A DOPTED THE LAND RATE OF RS.5500/- PER SQ. YD. AFTER CITING THE SALE INSTANC ES WHERE THE LAND WAS SOLD AT RS.2913/- AND RS.2700/- PER SQ. YD. THE SALE IN STANCES REFERRED TO BY THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT RELE VANT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND LOCATIO N OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE LAND OF COMPARABLE CASES. 16. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CIRCLE RATES ARE FIXED IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIC AREA COVERING ALL THE PLOTS OF LAND FALLING WITHIN THAT AREA. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT CERTAIN NEGATIVE FACTORS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PLOTS. FROM THE AOS ORDER WE FIND THAT THE A O HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF NEGATIVE FACTORS POINTED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE. THE AO HAS MERELY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WITH REGA RD TO THE NEGATIVE FACTORS 10 BY SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES FOR PROPER TIES ARE ARRIVED AT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES FOR PROPERTIES ARE ARRIVE D AT FOR WHOLE OF THE SPECIFIED AREA AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO EACH AND EVERY PLOT FALLING WITHIN THAT AREA. THEREFORE THE NEGATIVE FACTOR POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PLOTS PURCHASED BY HIM AS AGAINST THE OTHER PLOTS FALLING WITHIN THE SAME AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE APPLYING DISTRICT CIRCLE RATES TO ARRIVE AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 17. FURTHER IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS N OT MADE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLER TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER ANY AMOUNT OV ER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE AGREEMENT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. THE AO HAS MERELY MADE THE ADDITION ON T HE BASIS OF THE DVOS REPORT WHICH IN TURN BASED ON THE DISTRICT CIRCLE R ATE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY SCIENTIFIC METHOD PRESCRIBED FOR DETERMINING TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. 18. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SATYANARAYAN AGGARWAL (2 007) 12 TTJ 717 (AT PAGE 725) ITAT JODHPUR BENCH HAS HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY CHARGED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR NO ADDITION CAN BE MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PR OPERTY. IN THIS DECISION THE ITAT RELIED UPON THE EARLIER DECISION OF ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE 11 CASE OF JAI MALWAR CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ASSISTANT CIT IN ITA NO.2226 REPORTED IN (2003) 79 TTJ (JODHPUR) 178 IN WHICH IT WAS HEL D BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UP JAL NIGAM VS. KALRA PROPERTY AIR 1966 SC 1170 AND THAT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA NARENDRA (1995) 123 CTR (RAJ) 459 = (1994) 74 TAXMAN 157 (RAJ) THAT THE RATE FIXED FOR COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY CANNOT BE RELIED JUPON TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. 19. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SMT. ANSHU JAIN (2010) 36 SOT 263 (JAIPUR) THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH `A HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE IN FORM OF VERIFICATION FROM SELLER THAT THERE WAS UNDER STATE MENT OR CONCEALMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOS ES OR ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT CANNOT BE MADE. 20. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARESH KHATTAR HUF 261 ITR K664 (DEL) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD TO INVOKE THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 69B OF THE ACT THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF 12 RS.11 21 476/- MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DISTR ICT CIRCLE RATE APPLIED BY THE DVO TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THUS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 22. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 23. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 15 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JULY 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.