2011 (2) TMI 1245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt/assessee at the outset submitted that in this appeal the substantial question of law as framed does not involve and this appeal may be dismissed. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant refuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that the report of the DVO was wrongly not believed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. It is submitted that the AO rightly sought for the report of the DVO to ascertain the valuation of the construction of the building and as per report of the DVO rightly reassessed the income of the assessee, but the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in not considering this aspect.   3. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the factual position of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtners of the firm and also report by the approved valuer and found that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was correct and the order of the AO was set aside. The Tribunal also reconsidered the matter on the appeal filed by the Department and found that the reasonings and findings recorded by the CIT(A) were in accordance with law and agreeing with the aforesaid findings dismissed the appeal of the Department.   4. In this case, the substantial question of law on which this appeal was admitted on 28th April, 2009 relates to powers to make reference to Valuation Officer by the Dy. Director of Inspection (Inv.) under s. 131(1A) of the IT Act. The substantial question of law presupposes that such powers were exercised by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... O while the assessee transported the material by its own truck, the plinth was on pile system which was not estimated by the DVO and other expenses. The CIT(A) relying on the report of the approved valuer had recorded the findings in respect of cost of construction and found that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was correct and the report of DVO was not accepted. Aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are based on appreciation of the facts.   5. As the question which has been framed by this Court on 28th April, 2009 in this appeal does not arise, in the facts of the case, we dismiss this appeal by holding that aforesaid question does not arise in the appeal, with no order as to costs.  
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X