9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rces on account of investment in residential house being difference between the value determined by Valuation Officer of the Department and approved valuer of the assessee particularly when the difference in the estimate was about 20%." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had constructed a house at Panchkula. The matter was referred to the Valuation Cell. The Valuation Officer vide his report dated 20-5-1993 estimated the value of the house property at Rs. 12,39,000 against which the assessee has declared the cost at Rs. 10,46,000. Thus, there was a difference of Rs.1,93,000 in the cost of construction as shown by the assessee and that estimated by the Valuation Cell. The Assessing Officer required the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : 10% for difference of opinion which may occur while valuing the immovable property 1,37,670 11,01,363 Less : Cost of construction the source of which has been explained by the appellant as estimated by the Assessing Officer 10,36,300 65,063 Less : Surrendered by the appellant 55,363 9,700 4.1 In view of the above, it was claimed by the assessee before the CIT(A) that whereas the difference in the cost of construction was slightly more than 10%, there was no justification for the Assessing Officer to make any addition. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) allowed a partial relief to the assessee by deleting Rs. 1,37,337 out of addition of Rs. 1,47,337. The learned CIT(A) has held that while making the addition, the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of an honest difference of opinion. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. Raj Rani W/o Shri Manohar Lal, Fazilka in [IT Appeal No. 120 (Asr.)/2001 for the assessment year 1994-95, order dated 8-3-2002]. A copy of the same is available at page Nos. 3 to 11 of the assessee's paper book. 7.1 In view of the above, it was submitted that the order of the CIT(A) may be confirmed. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the parties. After considering the rival submissions, I may point out that there is no justification in interfering with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue since it is based on appreciation of facts and law. The main contention of the Department in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) was fully justified in allowing relief on account of honest difference of opinion. The order of the CIT(A) is in confirmity with the above decisions and, therefore, I decline to interfere with his order on this issue." 8.1 From the order of the CIT(A), reproduced hereinabove, it would be clear that he has rightly observed that "There may be an honest and bona fide difference of opinion while valuing the property. It is also true that difference upto 10% is generally being accepted". 8.2 Keeping in view the entire facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with his order. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
