9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .69B of the Act of Rs.97,76,773/- by considering the advances made by the assessee as cost of construction of building though even by assessee's own admission, the same were only advances given and the cost had not been incurred as on 31.03.2007. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing a deduction of 10% for construction under owner's own supervision relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ITO vs. Prakash Chand Surana (1979) 7 TTJ 29(JP), ignoring the fact that assessee could not have had that advantage of cost reduction as the assessee himself had shown architect fees of Rs.6,61,200/- and has got the work done through labour contractors and not under his own supervision. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the difference in valuation of Rs.6,21,411/- has to be ignored as DVO has valued the property after a lapse of considerable time, ignoring the fact that the scrutiny assessments in the income tax act is completed within a span of tree years from the end of the F.Y. relevant to the A.Y. in question and the valuation is made by the DVO considering the construction and the rates in the relevant year. 4. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction was referred to the District Valuation Officer. There was difference between investment declared in the return and cost estimated by the D.V.O. at Rs. 52,75,318/-. The bifurcation was Rs. 24,29,470/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 28,46,248/- for A.Y. 2007-08. The A.O. also rejected books u/s 145 of the I.T. Act. He considered the valuation report and evidence for framing of the assessment. The assessee was given reasonable opportunity to explain the difference in cost of construction of Rs. 24,29,470/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 28,46,248/- for A.Y. 2007-08 but the A.O. was not convinced with the reasons submitted by the appellant. He had given detailed reasoning on page nos. 5 to 7 for A.Y. 2006-07 and on page no. 6 to 8 for A.Y. 2007-08 and he made addition of Rs. 24,29,470/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 28,46,248/- in A.Y. 2007- 08 on account of excess unexplained expenditure. 3. Being aggrieved by these orders, the assessee filed second appeal before ld. CIT (A)-II, Ahmedabad, who has adjudicated this issue in his joint order on page nos. 2 to 9 and allowed the appeal for both the years in favour of the assessee, in paragraph 3.3 which is reproduced as under:- "3.3 I have consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified and deserve to be deleted. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of authorities below and case law cited by both the side. The assessee has shown cost of construction in balance sheet at Rs. 97,76,773/- whereas cost estimated by the valuer at Rs. 1,15,55,424/-. The difference is remained Rs. 17,76,412/-. There is own supervision in construction of bungalow which reduces the cost of construction. This benefit was allowed by the various ITATs near about 10% of the estimated cost of construction. The appellant also made expenditure after 31.03.2007. The A.O. has not brought on record any incriminating evidence found during the course of search and seizure operation for construction of bungalow. After considering the facts of the case, we have considered view that the valuation made by the D.V.O. is an estimate and has variation in cost estimation. The appellant has explained the difference before the CIT(A) as well as us. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Thus, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the revenue appeals are dismissed. 6. In the result, the revenue's appeals are dismissed in both the years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h,2011 by the authorized representative Rasesh Shah & Associates is filed alongwith form No.35 in which it is mentioned that the assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 154 on 18.02.2011 and no further demand has been raised by the A.O. as the order was passed u/s. 154 rejecting the assessee's application for rectification and accordingly, no demand notice was issued by the Assessing officer alongwith the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act. 5.1 From the above facts, it is established beyond any doubt that the learned A.R. has mentioned wrong facts that the interest u/s. 234B & 234C was charged first time in the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the appellant and without passing any speaking order. The interest u/s.2345B and 234C was charged originally in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) and in the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), the interest u/s.234B & 234C was reduced to Rs.5,20,125/- as against interest of Rs.9,06,917/- [ Rs.8,15,456 Int. u/s.2234B + Rs.91,461 Int. u/s.234C]. It is therefore, clear that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order giving effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
