[CIT Vs. Dinesh Jain HUF ;25 taxmann.com 550 (Delhi)]
During a search at the residential and business premises of the assessee, certain material was seized which, inter alia, revealed investment in various properties by the assessee. One such property was a flat, which was purchased for Rs. 17.55 lakh. The Assessing Officer noticed that it was a commercial property which was fetching rent of Rs. 7.02 lakh per annum. He was of the view that a property which was fetching such a substantial rental income could not have been acquired for Rs. 17.55 lakh. He concluded that the fair market value of the property should be estimated in accordance with Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealthtax Act, 1957. The difference between value of the property calculated in accordance with the said rule and the amount shown in the sale document came to Rs. 65.32 lakh which was assessed as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) Section 69B in terms requires that the Assessing Officer has to first ‘find’ that the assessee has ‘expended’ an amount which he has not fully recorded in his books of account. It is only then that the burden shifts to the assessee to furnish a satisfactory explanation. Till the initial burden is discharged by the Assessing Officer, the section remains dormant.
ii) A ‘finding’ obviously should rest on evidence. In the instant case, it is common ground that no incriminating material was seized during the search which revealed any understatement of the purchase price. That is precisely the reason why the Assessing Officer had to resort to Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act.
iii) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in his books of account for the simple reason that, such an inference could be very subjective and could involve the dangerous consequence of a notional or fictional income being brought to tax contrary to the strict provisions of article 265 of the Constitution of India and Entry 82 in List I of the Seventh Schedule thereto which deals with ‘Taxes on income other than agricultural income’.
iv) Applying the logic and reasoning in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC) , for the purposes of section 69B, it is the burden of the Assessing Officer to first prove that there was understatement of the consideration (investment) in the books of account. Once that undervaluation is established as a matter of fact, the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee as to the source of the undisclosed portion of the investment, can proceed to adopt some dependable or reliable yardstick with which to measure the extent of understatement of the investment. One such yardstick can be the fair market value of the property determined in accordance with the Wealth Tax Act.
v) Since the entire case has proceeded on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment, without a finding that the assessee invested more than what was recorded in the books of account, the decision of the Income-tax Authorities cannot be approved.
vi) Section 69B was wrongly invoked. The order of the Tribunal is upheld.”
