TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that sub-section 4 of section 253 authorises the respondent to file cross-objection on receipt of notice in appeal. The CO is required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of notice and it is to be verified in the manner akin to an appeal, but, the CO is to be filed against any part of the order impugned in the appeal. In the CO filed by the assessee, he has nowhere demonstrated his grievances against any part of the order of the CIT(A), as such, the CO is not maintainable in the present form. - IT(SS)A No.64/Ahd/2009 With CO No.235/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2015 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Smt.Vibha Bhalla, CIT-DR For The Assessee : Shri Sanjay Kapadia with Shri Ankur D. Shah ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of the ld.CIT(A)- II dated 17.6.2009 for the Asstt.Year 2002-03. 2. On receipt of notice in the Revenue s appeal, the assessee has filed cross-objections bearing no.CO No.235/Ahd/2009. The Revenue has taken five grounds of appeal, but the grievance revolves around a single issue whereby it has pleaded that the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 611111 3070933 2459822 4. Shri Kanakkumar J. Jariwala RS.No.175, Paiki, Block No.G-2, SI Patel Compound, Bhestan, Surat. 2003-04 0 272100 272100 4. On the strength of these details, the ld.AO has made addition. 5. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under: 5. I have considered the facts and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has stated that in his books the declared cost is ₹ 18,00,000/- (including cost of land ₹ 4,40,000/-) whereas the assessing officer and as well as DVO has taken the declared cost at ₹ 30,70,933/- only (including cost of land). The AO is directed to verify and if found correct take the correct value of ₹ 18,00,000/-. Further, the DVO as well as Assessing officer has not considered the various objection of the appellant like various common boundries, common wall etc. which will reduce the estimated cost of construction. Accordingly, after considering the assessee's submissions, in my view it will be reasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CITv. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this Court in the same vein. One such case being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total of these three years of expenditure could exceed ₹ 1.22 lakhs which was the difference between the DVO's valuation and that of the valuation of die assessee's valuer, on the basis of which he filed the return. 9. Coming to the question of addition towards purchase of land, the Commission of Income-Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both have examined the issue on the basis of the material avaibblc on record. It is noted that the assessee had made no disclosure towards the purchase of land in his statement during the search proceedings. The addition was made merely on the basis of the DVO s report without there being any other material. Moreover, the DVO had also substantially relied on jantri rates and had made other reference's for arriving at the valuation. 10. Both the issues are based primarily on factual aspects. No question of law, therefore, these appeals are dismissed. 10. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., (2013) 35 taxmann.com 296 (Guj), the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has made following observations: 9. We are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
