TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing inaccurate since the same took into account the entire valuation of the brick kiln also. In fact, as already noted, the contentions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the valuation was erroneous. He raised several grounds in support thereof. He contended that the construction was made through cost effective measures and the report, therefore, was not accurate. To our mind, such question cannot be examined as part of the requirement of substantial question of law. The valuer had also, as noted by the Assessing Officer, full material at his command. Taking into account the nature of construction and the manner in which the same was carried out, simply by suggesting that the valuer committed serious error in acceptin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the order of CIT(A) and observing that the fact (alleged understatement of investment) itself makes the books of account unreliable, incomplete and incorrect , without rejecting the books of accounts? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) by holding that the provisions of Section 69/ 69B of the Income-tax Act are applicable to such cases? 2. In brief, the issue pertains to additions made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 24,46,550/- to the total income of the assessee by way of undisclosed investment. The assessee had constructed a factory building and shown the value at ₹ 31.52 lakhs (rounded off) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee as an undisclosed investment and thus, made the above noted addition of ₹ 24,46,550/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. CIT(Appeals) reversed the view of the Assessing Officer. Before CIT(Appeals), the assessee took up two contentions which were never previously raised before the Assessing Officer. It was contended that the valuation report included the valuation both of the factory building as well as of the brick kiln. In the books of accounts, the assessee had separated these two buildings and hence the discrepancies. Second contention of the assessee was that the report was prepared for taking a bank loan, meaning thereby, the valuation was taken at the higher side solely for the purpose of receiving adequat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out, was incorrect. In this view of the matter, the order of CIT(A) in quantifying under-statement in the cost of construction of ₹ 22,70,370/- is confirmed. The assessee has given no explanation to explain the nature and source of investment as shown by it in it is own valuation report submitted to the bank and therefore the order of CIT(A) in confirming the impugned addition cannot be held to be irrational or unreasonable on the facts of the case. He has given cogent reasons for confirming the impugned addition in his appellate order. We are in agreement with them. 11. As regards the submission of the assessee that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the impugned addition as the books of account maintained by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of accounts of the assessee. 8. To our mind, however, no question of law arises. The Assessing Officer proceeded to examine the report of valuer supplied by the assessee itself. This was not a case where the Assessing Officer was relying on DVO s estimation of the cost of the building before the Assessing Officer. The assessee never took the stand before the Assessing Officer that the report may have been inflated since it was prepared primarily for the purpose of seeking bank loan. The assessee also did not raise any contention about the report being inaccurate since the same took into account the entire valuation of the brick kiln also. In fact, as already noted, the contentions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
