TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated July 25, 2008 passed in I. T. A. No. 2324/Mds/2006. 2. The substantial question of law sought to be raised is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while examining the cost of constructions claimed by the assessee in respect of the properties situated at 132, Bells Road and 76, V. R. Pillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai and also on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim for the construction of the abovesaid properties. 3. Having heard Mr. J. Naresh Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal as we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Departmental Valuer is to be preferred as against the valuation made by the Assessing Officer based on the State PWD rates. The other question related to disallowance of advance receipts to the extent of Rs. 1,70,000 as against Rs. 3,10,000 as made by the assessing authority. 6. The Tribunal in its reasoned order has found that the adoption of the Assessing Officer, based on the State PWD rates at the rate of Rs. 3,079 per sq. m was justified and also held that the disallowance of advance receipts to an extent of Rs. 1,70,000 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) was also in order. Having perused the order of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the Departmental Valuation Officer himself h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. while passing order impugned in this appeal. 8. Similarly, in respect of receipt of disallowance of Rs. 1,70,000 here again we find that the Tribunal was satisfied that the materials placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for receipt of advance amount to an extent excluding the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 and inasmuch as the said calculation was based on the relevant factors placed before the lower authorities, we are of the view that the same would not form part of any legal issue in order to entertain this appeal on any question of law much less substantial question of law. 9. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer a decision of this court in A. Abdul Rahim v. ITO [2002] 258 ITR 714 wherein this court held as under (headnot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
