9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee Smt. Diwari Ben Vagadia and not in the hands of the firm for the assessment year 1992-93 when the facts of the case clearly indicated otherwise?" 2. In another appeal, there is a difference of amount and the year i.e.1993-94. 3. The facts are not disputed that one piece of plot was purchased by the Respondent-assessee and the area of that plot is 0.2 acres. The property was purchased on 03rd September, 1987 for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and on half of the portion, a house was constructed and the assessee disclosed the investment to the tune of Rs.1,12,832/- in the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs.6,51,223/- for the assessment year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer, after obtaining the opinion of the valuer held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the I.T.A.T has also observed that the valuation report given by the assessee is not also complete. In view of the above reasons, the I.T.A.T. has committed error of law by accepting the report given by the valuer whose report was produced by the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the report of the valuer which was produced by the assessee was anti-dated and therefore, if that report was rejected on this ground also, the Assessing Officer has not committed any illegality. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that looking to the quality of the house, which was constructed, the addition by way of investing of only Rupees seven lacs plus cannot be believed and therefore, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also observed that the rate of cost of construction at Rs.3200/- per sq. mtr., cannot also be said to be correct because only some part of the existing building were dismantled and some additions or alterations were made. 7. We have gone through the orders, passed by the I.T.A.T. so as to see that there is an application of mind by the I.T.A.T. on the evidence produced by the parties and for rejection of the valuation report produced by the Revenue. The reasons have been well given and it is not merely on the basis that since the Assessing Officer has not given reasons for rejection of the report produced by the assessee, therefore, the I.T.A.T. has proceeded to decide on the basis of the report submitted by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
