Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 491 - HC - Income TaxUndisclosed investment - Held that:- As per section 142A(1) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972 - Assessing Officer wherever considers fit to estimate the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in Section 69A or Section 69B may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him - Section 142A of the Act, cannot be invoked where valuation of the cost of construction is bonafide and based on books of account which has not been rejected - The report of the DVO would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer under sub section (3) of Section 142A of the Act - There is logic and reasoning for adopting the aforesaid view - There appears to be no occasion for the revenue not to accept the valuation of the cost of construction of an asset without rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee. In the present case, it was only during the search when the assessee had no other option that the amount was surrendered on account of unaccounted amount of Rs. 22 lacs utilised by him - The only inference in such circumstances would be that the cost of construction shown in the books of account was due to the fact that they were not properly maintained - The reference by the Assessing Officer to the DVO was justified and cannot be faulted - The aggregate difference, duly accredited to A.Y.2007-08 comes to Rs.32,01,325/-, against Rs.22,00,000/- which has been disclosed - The balance of Rs.10,01,325/- is assessee's unexplained investment in construction of building which is added to his total income - The assessee failed to maintain quantitative details of major building material used in the construction of the building - In view of the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in the regular books of account vis-a-vis the cost of construction determined by the DVO, the variance was not within the range of 15% - The Tribunal was right in sustaining addition - Decided against assessee.
|