Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (7) TMI 327 - ITAT LUCKNOW-BUnexplained Investments - construction of flats - addition made on the basis of valuation report of a technical expert namely valuation office - difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench - Third Member Order - Judicial Member - HELD THAT:- Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO's report, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there is no material on record to sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the cost of investment in the property in question, in the light of the DVO's report and has found that the difference in the cost declared by the assessee and the cost estimated based on DVO's report is less than 10 per cent after considering the objection of the assessee and as such the same is to be ignored. The ld. D.R. has not brought any material even to dispute the above finding of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said addition of Rs. 1,43,098 made by the Assessing Officer. We agree with the ld. AR of the assessee that if the Assessing Officer has made the addition which is not based on sufficient material, the said addition could not be sustained and it would not be prudent for the Tribunal to direct the income-tax authorities to make an inquiry in a particular manner, as the Tribunal is an appellate authority and is required to decide the issue on the basis of the material before it. Therefore, we reject the ground of appeal taken by the Department by confirming the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) - In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Accountant Member - It is evident that for making assessment, the Assessing Officer is vested with widest power to obtain material for making assessment. If the Assessing Officer relied on such material which was not admissible in law then that would not vitiate the proceedings as this will amount to only irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It is a settled law that under such circumstances the proceedings have to be corrected from the stage at which irregularities have been committed. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT], I direct the matter to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the case of investment in building without taking into consideration the D.V.O.'s report. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Third Member - Admittedly, no defect has been pointed out in the books of account and cost of construction returned by the assessee was found duly supported by relevant vouchers and documentary evidence. Apart from it, the assessee has also filed report of the Registered Valuer who has also given cost of construction which is approximately same as returned by the assessee-company. It is to be noted that report of the Registered Valuer is also an important piece of evidence and in this connection I may refer the decision of ITAT, Patna Bench in the case of Shanti Complex v. ITO [1997 (5) TMI 105 - ITAT PATNA] in which the importance of Registered Valuer was also discussed and it was opined that report of an expert only acts as an opinion before a judicial or quasi-judicial authority to whom it is submitted. That report is open to judicial scrutiny by higher judicial forum and in case there are two experts' opinion before the judicial forum, it cannot be said that DVO's report carries more weight or DVO is superior to other. Both are statutory creations and expected to perform functions provided by the relevant statute. The Assessing Officer has to consider the report of the Registered Valuer also effectively and arrive at his own conclusion. In this case in hand, the report of the Registered Valuer has been ignored by the Assessing Officer on flimsy ground and that was not the correct way to appreciate the same. In view of this also, the entries in the books of account duly get support from the report of the Valuer also. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would have been served in remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The cumulative result of the findings of the above, the view taken by the ld. Judicial Member is just and addition was liable to be deleted without remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the view taken by the ld. Judicial Member. The Hon'ble Vice President, Shri Phool Singh sitting as Third Member, by his opinion dated 6th July, 2005, has concurred with the view of the ld. Judicial Member, who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the construction of the flats on the basis of the DVO's report. Therefore, in accordance with the majority view, the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
|