IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ........Appellant vs. Sat Narain Yadav .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. C.M. No. 27356-CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee does not want to press the application. C.M. is dismissed as withdrawn. I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011 The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi in ITA No. 4547/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was justified in I.T.A. No. 183 of 2011(O&M) 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,52,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property by observing that no evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating that the assessee has paid more than the amount disclosed in the purchase deed, instead of getting proper enquiry conducted by directing the AO to make a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” (ii) Whether the failure of the learned ITAT to get proper enquiry made by the lower authority through reference to a valuation officer in a case where the facts and the circumstances so demanded does not result in failure which lays open the action of the Ld. IAT to correction by a higher authority in the light of the ration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT reported in 231 IR 277? Learned counsel for the revenue admitted that the questions raised in the present appeal were also the questions of law in the judgment passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chandani Bhochar, (2010) 323 ITR 510. The said questions of law were decided against the revenue. In view of the said fact, the present appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 21.11.2011 JUDGE reena