TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the Assessing Officer to adopt the State P.W.D. rates on the ground that the building is located in interior Tamil Nadu. - Decided against revenue - Tax Case (Appeal) No. 512 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Gracious Knits For the Appellant : Mr. T. R. Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax JUDGMENT ( Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J. ) This Tax Case (Appeal) is filed at the instance of the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-2009 raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the difference in the value of the building accounted in the books of the accounts of the assessee, which was determined by the District Valuation Officer. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, thereby dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee pursued the matter once again before the Tribunal contending that the District Valuation Officer had adopted the CPWD rate, but the property is situated in Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal holding as follows: We have heard rival submissions and carefully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove and complete the assessment accordingly. We further make it clear that our aforesaid decision is based on the arguments made by the Ld.A.R. and the Ld.D.R. at the time of hearing of the case before us and no further issues or grounds were raised by either party. 4. Aggrieved by the above-said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In an identical circumstance, this Court, while deciding the issue that in a case of dispute where the assessee's valuation was not accepted, whether the rates fixed by the State P.W.D. or the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tick adopted for valuation within the State. This will result in incongruous results, as one Officer is taking the rates fixed by the CPWD and another Officer is taking the rates fixed by State PWD. 8. In the case of T.M.P.N.Murugesan -vs- Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 217 Taxmann 40, this Court, while considering the similar issue whether the rates fixed by the CPWD alone could be taken into consideration towards arriving at a cost of construction, held as follows: 7. It is seen from the narration of the facts that evidently, except for the bare accounts maintained, there are no materials in the form of vouchers, to cross check the quantum of materials used in the construction. In the absence of basic records with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
