TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch no question of law arises for consideration – Decided against revenue. - TAX APPEAL No. 27 of 2014 With TAX APPEAL No. 28 of 2014 To TAX APPEAL No. 29 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2014 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MS SONIA GOKANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Akil Kureshi J.- These appeal involve the same assessee and the questions raised by the Revenue also overlap. These appeals are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The Revenue has challenged the common judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ( the Tribunal for short) dated June 21, 2013, for three separate assessment years, i.e., 2008-09 ; 2009-10 and 201011. The assessee was subjected to search proceedings during which, he disclosed that in the cost of construction of a house, an undisclosed income to the extent of ₹ 1.50 crores had gone into. However, this statement was later on retracted. In addition to the value of the house ; including the land shown at ₹ 1.34 crores (rounded off), the assessee filed the return of income declaring further investment of ₹ 38.30 lakhs (rounded off) in such house from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. With respect to the cost of construction, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed as under : 19. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and have gone through the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. I have also gone through the various judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and the related provisions of the Act. 19.1 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant during the course of search proceedings repeatedly made the admission under section 132(4) if the Income-tax Act confirming the fact that he has incurred the expenditure of ₹ 1,50,00,000 out of his undisclosed income in the construction of bungalow No. 4 Janod, Amarkunj Society and, accordingly, he has disclosed unexplained investment of ₹ 1,50,00,000 in the construction of bungalow as his unaccounted income. The relevant statement has already been reproduced by the appellant in his submissions and, therefore, the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity. 19.2 Subsequently, the appellant has got the construction of bungalow duly estimated by the private registered valuer. The report of the registered v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is ₹ 1,24,22,644. On comparison of the report, it is noted that the private registered valuer's report of the estimated cost of construction also includes the cost of air-conditioners, electrical fixtures, movable furniture, etc., amounting ₹ 8,50,000 as well as bathroom fittings, amounting to ₹ 5,00,000. The report of the DVO clearly specifies that the estimated cost of construction does not include the cost of AC movable items, i.e., electrical, kitchen and gym equipment. Considering the above, there is hardly any difference in the two estimated values of construction of the bungalow. . . . 19.9 xx xx xx 19.10 xx xx xx 19.11 xx xx xx 19.12 In view of the above, I assessment of the considered opinion that no addition is called for on account of the sole reliance on the DVO's report as has been made by the Assessing Officer since the value of the cost of construction as determined by the DVO is almost the same as has been shown by the appellant including the disclosed amount of ₹ 38,30,000. In view of the above, I do not find any reason for addition to be made on account of the DVO's report when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer has not pointed out any defect in the books of account based on which reference under section 142A can be justified so far as the cost of land is concerned. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any defect in the books of account maintained by the appellant-firm so as to conclude that books of account maintained by the appellant-firm cannot be relied upon so far as the purchase price of land is concerned. 21.4 In the present case, the Assessing Officer has made the addition mainly on the basis of the valuation report made by the DVO. There is not a single stance to show that the appellant had actually incurred the expenditure that was more than that recorded in the books of account. There is no reference to any such evidence found even during the course of search proceedings. 21.5 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I assessment of the considered opinion that so far as the addition on account of unexplained investment made in the purchase of land on the basis of the valuation report is concerned, no sole reliance on the DVO's report can be made for the purpose of making addition of the entire difference. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
