Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 274 - AT - Income TaxAssessment completed u/s 143(3) - reference u/s 131(1)(d) to the DVO - determination of the cost of construction - Addition u/s 69 - Income From Undisclosed Sources - retrospective effect of amendments in section 142A - time-limit for issuance of notice under section 143(2) - HELD THAT:- In the case of CWT v. R.L. Kasliwal [1993 (12) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT [2004 (3) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] court held that reference made to the Valuation Officer after the completion of assessment was invalid. We, thus, concur with the view of the learned CIT(A) in this regard that when assessment proceedings were not pending for the year in the present case, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making reference to the DVO to determine the cost of construction, hence the reference was invalid and, thus, the report furnished by the DVO. The first appellate order in this regard is, thus, upheld. Submission of the ld AR that the assessment order in the present case has reached its finality before 30-9-2004 as per the provisions of section 142A of the Act is concerned, we do not agree with him, because under the wordings of proviso to section 142A inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with retrospective effect 15-11-1972 is very much clear. We find substance in the submission of the ld AR that without pointing out specific defects in the books of account or rejecting the books of account, reference could not be made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO for determination of cost of construction. Even otherwise, we find that there were certain defects in the report of the DVO, which have been observed by the learned CIT(A) in the first appellate order. He has noted that his predecessor had made an attempt to verify the plinth area of the spot and found that DVO had adopted higher plinth area than measured on the spot by his predecessor. Even the Assessing Officer had not accepted the valuation of the property at Rs. 62,85,000 determined by the DVO and after considering several objections of the assessee to the report, he had arrived at the figure of Rs. 56,39,509. In view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh v. Deepak Kumar [1992 (3) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and Tribunal in the cases of Smt. Rekha Devi v. Asstt. CIT [1993 (8) TMI 137 - ITAT JAIPUR], the learned CIT(A) has taken the view that the local PWD rates should be applied as against CPWD rates while working out the value of the property in question. Thus, even on the merits of the case, the learned CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with this observation that expenditure should have been spread over in different years as construction was made in more than one year. The first appellate order is, thus, upheld. The grounds are, thus, decided accordingly. In result, the appeal is dismissed.
|