IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 482/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                ..... Appellant 
 Through:  Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal 
 versus 
 . 
 VINOD SINGHAL                                 ?.. Respondent 
 Through:  Ms Rani Kiyala for Dr Rakesh Gupta 
 CORAM: 
 HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        05.05.2010 
 CM No.5179/2010 
 . 
 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 ITA 482/2010 
 . 
 This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 08.05.2009 
 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.3647/Del/2008 in respect 
 of the Assessment Year 2003-04.  The Assessing Officer has made an addition in 
 respect of unaccounted investment by merely relying upon the DVO?s report with 
 regard to a share in property (D-45, First Floor Hauz Khas, New Delhi) purchased 
 by the assessee. 
 The Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
 decided against the Revenue and held that the addition could not be made only on 
 the basis of DVO report unless and until there was evidence to show that 
 something over and above the amount shown in the registered sale deed had been 
 paid by the assessee to the seller. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied 
 upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO: 131 
 ITR 597(SC) as also on the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi: 
 316 ITR 46. In the latter decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that 
 there must be a finding of the Revenue that the assessee had received amounts 
 over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed.  This is the primary 
 burden which has been cast upon the Revenue and it is only when such burden is 
 discharged that it would be permissible to the valuation as given by the DVO. 
 In the absence of the burden having gone into being discharged, it was not 
 permissible in law to make any inferences against the assessee. 
 The Tribunal has merely followed the law which has been settled by the 
 Supreme Court as well as by this Court.  There is no question of law involved in 
 the present case what to speak of a substantial question of law. 
 . 
 . 
 The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 V.K. JAIN, J 
 MAY 05, 2010/bg 
 $ 8