S.K. CHANDER, A.M. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC dt. 10th Jan., 1985 relating to asst. yr. 1981-82. issue in this appeal is whether on facts and in circumstances of case, there is any justification for addition of Rs. 47,500 to total income of assessee under head Income from other sources'. above addition was made by ITO in impugned assessment order dt. 15th Feb., 1984 made under s. 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for year under appeal. ITO found that property for House No. 1, Road No. 44, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, had been sold for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 s stated in agreement for sale and purchase entered into between vendor and vendee on 11th Jan., 1979. In support of consideration shown in this instrument, assessee had filed valuation report from his valuer, ITO himself obtained valuation of said property from Valuation Officer after making reference to him under s. 55A of Act. property was sold by Shri Hari Ram, father and his three sons, Sanjay, was major, Kailash and Sham were minors. Therefore, father as natural guardian of minors was under obligation to obtain permission of concerned authorities for sale of property in view of Hindu Minority Act. This took considerable time with result that actual conveyance of property took place only on 20th Oct., 1980 when deed was registered. ITO, therefore, got valuation of property done on two dates first valuation was done as on 11th Jan., 1979 and other as on 20th Oct., 1980. In this judgment, we are not concerned with valuation given by Valuation Officer at instance of ITO for 20th Oct., 1980 because ITO himself has recorded after consideration of submissions made by assessee that, for reasons explained by assessee and that agreement ultimately materialised, I take cost of property as on 11th Jan., 1979 as relevant price. This valuation was Rs. 1,97,500. vendors had received and vendee had paid Rs. 1,50,000 for demised property. Since, there was difference between valuation as on 11th Jan., 1979 given by WTO and as shown in instrument, ITO took difference of Rs. 47,500 as investment made by assessee in purchase of property from out of income from undisclosed sources. This was brought to tax. first appeal filed by assessee against said addition before ld. AAC met with failure. Hence, proceedings before us. On basis of authorities noted infra, ld. counsel for assessee submitted before us that authorities below erred in adding to total income of assessee impugned sum of Rs. 47,500 because actual consideration that passed between vendors and vendee was only Rs. 1,50,000, that it was for Revenue to prove that anything more than that passed hands, that plot on which building was constructed was oddity that property was not easily saleable, that fair market value of property therefore, was not comparable with properties of normal dimension even in same locality, that superstructure was very old having been constructed in year 1962-63 and lacked modern amenities which could fetch good value, that competent authorities having initiated proceedings under s. 269 of Act had finally dropped proceedings as per orders made and appearing at pages 51 to 54 of paper book dt. 2nd Nov., 1981, that Valuation Officer had not given due consideration to odd size of plot and old superstructure on it, that valuation taken is only estimate and does not show that in reality vendors have paid and vendees have received any amount in excess of amounts stated in instrument and that authorities below have failed to appreciate entirety of facts and circumstances of case and assessee had been erroneously saddled with tax liabilities. Authorities relied upon are: Jindal Strips Ltd. vs. ITO (1979) 10 CTR (P&H) 103: (1979) 116 ITR 825 (P&H) (FB), K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358: (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT vs. Apsara Talkies (1985) 155 ITR 303 (Mad) and Unique Associates Co-op. Hsg- Society Ltd. vs. Union of India (1985) 152 ITR 114 (Bom): (1984) 16 TAXMAN 127 (Bom). On other hand, ld. departmental representative supported action of authorities below and contended that ITO was fully justified in making reference and asking for valuation from Valuation Officer of Revenue as reference is provided under Chapter which deals with computation of income, that ITO made addition under s. 69 of Act because assessee had apparently invested in property amount more than stated consideration in view of report of Valuation Officer, that factum of shape of plot, age of building and other contentions of assessee had been duly considered by Valuation Officer in arriving at value of property as on 11th Jan., 1979, that assessee has not shown that value as on 11th Jan., 1979 was not reasonable and fair, that dropping of proceedings by competent authority does not per se given any right to assessee to claim that there was no extra consideration that stated one in document, that ITO had been reasonable and fair in taking value only as on 11th Jan., 1979 and that no case has been made out by assessee for interference in order of learned AAC and, therefore, appeal of assessee be dismissed. These submissions were made on basis of following authorities and orders of lower authorities: R.K. Garg vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 406: (1982) 133 ITR 239 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. Prem Kumari (1984) 38 CTR (All) 124: (1984) 146 ITR 191 (All) and CIT vs. Jumramal Son (1986) 50 CTR (All) 231: (1985) 154 ITR 689 (All). We have given careful consideration to rival submissions. It has been held by Supreme Court in case of K.P. Varghese (supra), while dealing with case of s. 52(2) of Act that said sub-section has no application in case of honest and bona fide transaction where consideration received by assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him. However where consideration for transfer of capital asset has been understated or full value of consideration in respect of transfer is shown at lesser figure than actually received by assessee, burden of proving such under-statement or concealment is on Revenue. These observations of Hon'ble Court are, in our considered opinion, equally applicable to type of case now before us where ITO made reference under s. 55A and on receipt of valuation, ITO without doing anything took difference as shown in valuation and as shown in document as amount that had passed hands. ITO has neither examined vendors nor vendees to show that actual consideration as stated in instrument was not real consideration that passed between parties. Hon'ble Madras High Court has pointed out in case of Apsara Talkies (supra), that valuer's estimate on cost of consideration could not be taken at sacrosanct. Court has further observed that valuation is even in most expert hands, and in exact instrument of measurement. It is only estimate and no two valuers will agree on same subject. This indicates that on mere report of Valuation Officer, ITO cannot build up case that something more than stated consideration had passed between parties. I n order to build up case of that type, ITO has to go beyond that and establish after necessary enquiries and on acceptable documentary evidence that stated consideration was not real consideration. It is pertinent to note that there was no delay merely because two parties wanted to understate consideration shown in agreement for sale and purchase because registration took time in view of minors' involved in transaction on whose behalf their father and natural guardian had to obtain permission under Hindu Minority Act from concerned authorities. It is very important to note that another authority established by law under same statute has found after enquiry that there was no case for acquisition of property as consideration stated was acceptable. It is important to note that plot on which property was constructed was Schemukhiya' which is not considered as auspicious generally by public and superstructure on it being old consideration paid or for that matter fair market value of property would not be comparable to other properties even in same locality built up on regular plots. In fact, this aspect of matter was recognised and taken note of even by Valuation Officer. In our considered opinion, therefore, on entirety of facts of case, there is no justification for making addition of Rs. 47,500 merely because there was difference between valuation determined by Valuation Officer and consideration stated in instrument of transfer. We, therefore, delete addition and allow appeal of assessee. Appeal allowed. *** MOHINDER KUMAR BHATIA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER