Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 483 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted investment – Addition of Rs.43,59,881 out of Rs.2,18,26,105 - The first legal issue raised is that the cost of construction was referred to the DVO without pendency of any proceedings u/s.153C of the IT Act for A.Y.2005-06 - On the basis of evidences, that the assessee has regularly maintained books of account and various records along with supporting evidences of various raw materials like cement, steel, bricks, sand, wood, labour cost, sanitary wares etc. but the AO has not found out any defect in the books/records/bills etc. and has not rejected books of account - Without causing any defects in books regularly maintained and without rejecting the books u/s.145, of the Act there is no reason to add any amount on the presumption that the cost/investment in construction is low Referring the matter to the DVO u/s.142A of the Act for the purposes of estimating the cost of construction u/s.69 of the Act - It is quite apparent that reference to valuation cell u/s.142A can be made during the course of assessment and reassessment and not for the purpose for initiating reassessment - From the reading of sub-s.(1) of s. 142A, it is clear that the legislature referred to the provisions of ss. 69, 69A and 69B but specifically excluded 69C - In fact during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee produced the assessment order which clearly demonstrates that the expenditure shown by the assessee from the time, when it was an on-going project, was examined and accepted by, the AO - If the intention of the Legislature to include unexplained expenditure as contemplated in Sec.69C of the Act, the provision of Sec.142A should have been specifically mentioning the same – Decided in the favour of the assessee and against the revenue
|