Per Shri S.K. Chander, Accountant Member - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the AAC dated 10-1-1985 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.

2. The issue in this appeal is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any justification for the addition of Rs. 47,500 to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources'.

3. The above addition was made by the ITO in the impugned assessment order dated 15-2-1984 made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the year under appeal. The ITO found that property for House No. 1, Road No. 44, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 as stated in the agreement for sale and purchase entered into between the vendor and vendee on 1l-1-1979. In support of the consideration shown in this instrument, the assessee had filed valuation report from his valuer, the ITO himself obtained the valuation of the said property from the Valuation 0fficer after making a reference to him under section 55A of the Act. The property was sold by Shri Hari Ram, father and his three sons, Sanjay, was major, Kailash and Sham were minors. Therefore, the father as a natural guardian of the minors was under an obligation to obtain permission of the concerned authorities for the sale of the property in view of the Hindu Minority Act. This took considerable time with the result that the actual conveyance of the property took place only on 20-10-1980 when the deed was registered. The ITO, therefore, got valuation of the property d one on two dates—first valuation was done as on 11-1-1979 and the other as on 20-10-1980. In this judgment, we are not concerned with the valuation given by the Valuation Officer at the instance of the ITO for 20-10-1980 because the ITO himself has recorded after consideration of the submissions made by the assessee that, 'for the reasons explained by the assessee and that the agreement ultimately materialised I take the cost of the property as on 11-1-1979 as the relevant price'. This valuation was Rs. 1,97,500. The vendors had received and the vendee had paid Rs. 1,50,000 for the demised property. Since, there was difference between the valuation as on 11-1-1979 given by the WTO and as shown in the instrument, the ITO took the difference of Rs. 47,500 as investment made by the assessee in purchase of the property from out of income from undisclosed sources. This was brought to tax. The first appeal filed by the assessee against the said addition before the learned AAC met with failure. Hence, the proceedings before us.

4. On the basis of the authorities noted infra, the learned counsel for adding to the total income of the assessee the impugned sum of the assessee submitted before us that the authorities below erred in Rs. 47,500 because the actual consideration that passed between the vendors and the vendee was only Rs. 1,50,000, that it was for the revenue to prove that anything more than that passed hands, that the plot on which the building was constructed was an oddity that the property was not easily saleable, that the fair market value of the property, therefore, was not comparable with the properties of normal dimension even in the same locality, that the superstructure was very old having been constructed in the year 1962-63 and lacked modern amenities which could fetch good value, that the competent authorities having initiated proceedings under section 269 of the Act had finally dropped the proceedings as per orders made and appearing at pages 51 to 54 of the paper book dated 2-11 -1981, that the Valution Officer had not given due considera- tion to the odd size of the plot and old superstructure on it, that the valuation taken is only an estimate and does not show that in reality the vendors have paid and the vendees have received any amount in excess of the amounts stated in the instrument and that the authorities below have failed-to appreciate