Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2012 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 157 - HC - Income TaxAdditions to the returned income - difference between the cost of construction as disclosed by assessee and as estimated by the District Valuation Office - Held that:- Since AO had not rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3), by pointing out any defect, the reference to the DVO was not valid and therefore, his report could not be used for framing assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A. The scope and ambit of section 69B and 69C are altogether different. The connotation to the investment appearing in section 69B has to be in the context of investments made in some property or any other type of investment and it could not be the business expenditure. The word " investment" contained in section 69B deals with investment in bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, etc. If the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is accepted and the expression is given a wider meaning as sought to be made out, the provisions of section 69C shall be rendered otiose. Except the report of the DVO on which the AO relied upon there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any other evidence to disbelieve the expenditure shown by the assessee. In fact the seized documents pertaining to this company were duly confronted vide questionnaire and the reply furnished thereof satisfactorily explains the transactions recorded therein which have been verified vis-à-vis books of account/Balance Sheet - as can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee with that of the DVO the variation is only 3.86 % which is a very minor variation - As AO did not examine the variations, with specific reference to any items of expenditure that were unreasonable additions made cannot be warranted - in favour of assessee.
|