9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 for the assessment year 2000-01. The appeal has been preferred on following proposed substantial questions of law as follows: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee has discharged his primary burden to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans of Rs. 1, 25, 000/- and Rs. 50, 000/-.? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that difference between cost of construction as shown by the assessee after adjustment of relief and as determined by the DVO being less than 10% be ignored.? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that supervision char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y confirmation, source of deposits and had produced the creditors, who had admitted making of advances. The nature and source of the credit was proved, and thus the assessee had discharged the burden. In the circumstances, we do not find that question no. 1 framed by the revenue raises any question of law to be considered by the High Court. On question nos. 2 to 5, it is submitted by Shri Dhananjai Awasthi, that the DVO had allowed only 5% of the cost of construction as the supervision charges as against 10% claimed by the assessee by its Directors. The CIT (Appeals) found that the assessee is engaged in the business of constructions of buildings. It maintains its books of accounts on the basis of accounting standard issued by ICAI, and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of CIT (A) on the expenses or constructions such as supervision charges, bank commission, plans approval, expenditure, expenses for Form 32 for purchase of material, municipal taxes and fertiliser were justified. The CIT (A) had worked out the difference between the estimated cost in terms of DVO's report and modified the cost after allowing the supervision charges and adjusting architect fees. These, according to the Tribunal, were findings of fact. We do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the revenue, that these questions may be treated as questions of law for consideration in this appeal. In our opinion, all these questions are questions of fact, which were considered by the CIT (A), and thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
