9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the learned Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,55,375/- and whether the said finding is not perverse in the absence of any reasons?" 2. That the assessee is a partnership firm belonging to one Ravi Builders Group of cases and derives income from the business of construction. Search and seizure operations were carried out by the Income Tax Authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] at the business and residential premises of the group resulting in seizure of bulk of documents and records. The AO made the block assessments in the various cases of the group, namely, Ravi Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Ravi Builders as well as the assessee firm. It appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books and therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Officer while making the block assessment under section 158BC of the Act. It was specifically submitted that as such the reasonableness of the cost debited in the books, may be considered by the AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings and not while making the block assessment under section 158BC of the Act. Number of other submissions were also made on behalf of the assessee against the addition of aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,23,545/-. 2.2 That the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and order has directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs. 10,23,545/- by observing that since the building in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has vehemently submitted that as such on the basis of the District Valuation Officer's report, which was subsequently obtained by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, such difference between the valuation declared by the assessee and the valuation report by the District Valuation Officer could not have been added as undisclosed income in a block assessment proceedings under section 158BC of the Act. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kantilal B. Kansara (HUF) reported in (2011)337 ITR 187 (Guj.). He has als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been made? As such the aforesaid question is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kantilal B. Kansara [HUF] (Supra). In the aforesaid decision the Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that addition under Section 158BD of the Act can be made only in respect of the material disclosed at the time of search or pursuant to any inquiry made in relation to the search. In the aforesaid case also, the addition was made by the AO solely based upon the report made by the District Valuation Officer, which was referred during the course of the assessment proceedings. To the aforesaid the Division Bench has observed that the report of the District Valuation Officer cannot be st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
