TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VI MALIMATH, JJ. E. Sanmathi Indira Kumar for the Appellant. S. Parthasarathi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions of law and fact and have been admitted by order dated 4-12-2006 for considering the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the difference between the cost of construction of commercial complex constructed by the Assessee at No. 11, Palace Road, Bangalore, declared by the Assessee and that worked out by the District Valuation Officer by taking into consideration the contribution of building materials made by the tenants of Rs. 17,95,000 and 10 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The difference of Rs. 14,40,643 and a sum of Rs. 29,52,911 was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee respectively for the said assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since it was found that the assessee had not maintained any proper books of account or vouchers for incurring the expenditure towards the cost of construction, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer. Accordingly the order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer on 27-3-2002 and additional unexplained investment was added to the valuation made towards the cost of construction and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to be set aside and he has taken us through the order passed by the DVO and the appellate authority as also the order of the Tribunal which has gone into these two appeals. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that according to the report of the DVO the cost of construction was Rs. 75,94,000 and the Tribunal has held that the tenant had made certain improvements in the property for the beneficial enjoyment of the property and even if the said addition is taken into account it would come to Rs. 17,95,000 by adding to the income declared towards construction at Rs. 56,27,477 and the Tribunal further held that the assessee had spent the amount up-to August 1996 which has not been taken into account and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
