TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri Navin Gargh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.K. Mishra, Jr. D.R. ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Agra for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1.1 Because in any view, the addition u/s. 69 confirmed by ld. CIT (A) of ₹ 34.51,400/-, for the so called unexplained investment in construction of building is perverse, arbitrary, wrong and illegal. 1.2 Because in any view, the reference u/s 142A for valuation of property c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated on behalf of the assessee that college building was two storey building and third floor was under construction. As per schedule 6 of the Balance Sheet filed with the return of income, depreciated value of building has been disclosed at ₹ 64,34,969/- as on 01.04.2006 and addition in the building for ₹ 18,88,402/- was made during the year. In order to verify cost of construction, matter was referred to the Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Agra under Section 142A of the Act. The Valuation Officer, Agra has furnished his report dated 23.12.2009 and he has estimated year-wise value of the college building as under:- (Page no.2) Financial Year Cost declared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o restrict the valuation for one year only. As mentioned above, Departmental Valuer has determined the value of College building year wise from the financial year 2001-02 to the financial year 2008-09 which include valuation for the period from 01.04.06 to 31.07.07 separately. Assessee has not pointed out any other specific defect in the valuation report communicated to the assessee with the above Notice except seeking 10 days time for obtaining objection to the Valuation Report from his Valuer. As per Departmental Valuation Report, assessee has made investment of ₹ 53,39,803/- in the College Building during the financial year 2006-07. As per schedule 6 of the balance sheet filed with the return of Income assessee has disclosed inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee are not reliable which tantamounts to rejection of books of accounts. Therefore, I don t find any merit in the ground of appeal and the same is dismissed. 8. The objection regarding applying CPWD rate for estimation, the CIT (A) rejected the assessee s contention as he did not find any merit in that contention. 9. The issue related to exemption under Section 11 or under section 10(23C) (iiiad) of addition made, the CIT (A) relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 237 ITR 589 (SC) and I.T.A.T., Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Smt. Soeda Educational Society, ITA No. 237 238/H/2010, order dated 21.04.2011. 10. The CIT(A) held that no exemption would be availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el/94 (ITAT Agra Bench) viii) ITO vs. M/s Shakuntla Sheet Grah (Pvt.) Ltd., ITA No.6635/Del/1995 (ITAT Agra Bench) ix) Director of Income Tax vs. Raunaq Education Foundation, 294 ITR 76 (Del.) x) ACIT vs. Muslim Educational Society, 1 ITR (Trib) 527 (ITAT Cochin Bench) xi) DCIT vs. Smt. Sarada Educational Society, ITA Nos.237 238/Hyd/2010 (ITAT Hyderabad B Bench) 14. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of CIT(A). 15. We have heard the learned representative of parties and records perused. The ld. Authorised Representative has not pressed ground no.1.3, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 16. The ground no. 1.1. 1.2. are in respect of reference u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law laid by the Apex Court, rejected the Revenue s contention in this regard in the case of CIT Vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society, 339 ITR 588 (All.) 17. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT, 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT Vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society, 339 ITR 588 (All.), in the case under consideration, we find that reference under section 142A of the Act by the A.O. is not in accordance with law as he referred the matter under section 142A without rejecting books of account. The order of A.O. on the issue is liable to be quashed and accordingly we quash the same. 18. As regards grounds no.1.4 1.5, we find that the contention of the assessee are general in natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
