TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INGH, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 31.8.2004, Annexure A.3, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, SMC-II, New Delhi (in short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.4003/D/2003, for the assessment year 1998-99 claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he DVO vide his letter dated 7.2.2001 submitted his report estimating the cost of construction as Rs. 15,43,500/-. Thus, there was difference of Rs. 3,42,225/- for the year under consideration. The assesse was called upon to show cause as to why the difference of Rs. 3,42,225/- should not be assessed as unexplained investment in the construction of house building. After considering the objections raised by the assessee on different points of valuation report, relief to the extent of Rs. 1,23,477/- was given to the assessee. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in the construction of the above house building to the extent of Rs.2,37,883/- during the year in question, the same was deemed to be the income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was submitted that it was not essential or mandatory for the revenue to have rejected the books of account before making the reference under section 142A of the Act. It was thus urged that the substantial questions of law claimed by the revenue are required to be answered in its favour and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute on merits in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for the revenue, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that without rejection of the valuation of the property shown in the books of account, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sargam Cinema v. CIT, (2010) 328 ITR 513, reference to the DVO was bad in law. It was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
