TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en there is a concurrent finding by three fact finding authorities based on legal evidence, not case for interference is made out. In that view of the matter. He substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. HELD THAT:- the facts of this case, when the assessee, though has not maintained the books of accounts, has declared the investment in residential house at ₹ 1,45,32,000/- as on 31.3.2004 in place like Sainagar, the Assessing authorities were not justified in relying on the District Valuation Officer s report which was based on CPWD rates at ₹ 1,64,20,839/- and in adding ₹ 23,20,599/- as unexplained investment u/s 69, therefore, the said portion of the order is set aside and we delete the said addition. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is not in dispute that the asessee withdrew sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and ₹ 2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural Income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land. The Assessing Officer did not Accept the case that portion of the income representing agricultural income by way of lease and therefore, he added the said income. Secondly the assessee ha constructed a residential house and she had shown a total investment of ₹ 1,45,32,000/- including the land value. No accounts had been maintained. A reference was made to the Valuation Cell of the Income Tax Department to estimate the cost of construction of the said building. It was valued at ₹ 1,64,20,839/- excluding the land value. The asessee filed her objections to the said report. The differential amount in a sum of ₹ 23,20,599/- was treated as an unexplained investment and bought to tax under Section 69 of the Act. Thirdly the assesse had deposited a sum of ₹ 2,37,977/- on 29.9.2003 in Suko Bank loan account and a sum ₹ 2,83,321/- on 25.11.2003 in Canara Bank loan account. The Assessee offered an explanation regarding the source of income. However, the Assessing Officer found the explanation as unsatisfactory and directed the addition of the said amo0unt. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer making those aforesaid additions the aass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g requires to be set aside. Lastly, he contended that when once it is demonstrated that a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account and when it is pleaded that a sum of ₹ 5,20,000/- is deposited in two loan accounts, it cannot be said that the assessee has not explained the source of the said deposits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue supported the impugned award. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the submissions. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the agricultural income form the lease property is not established? (2) Whether the authorities were justified in valuing the residential house constructed by the assessee on the basis of CPWD rates were not available? (3) Whether the finding of the authorities that the source of case deposited in the loan accounts is not properly explained? 8. Question 1 : The assessee in an agriculturist. She owns agricultural lands. She had an agricultural income from 10.11 acres out of 33 acres and 52 cents in which sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in Dharwad a mofussil area. The contention of the assessee is that CPWD rate which is higher than the KPWD rates cannot be adopted for the purpose of the valuation of the cost of construction In this case, the Assistant Valuation Officer of the Department has given only 4% towards the self supervision, have been giving rebate for the self-supervision ranging from 10 to 15%. Hence, we hold that the rebate given by the departmental valuation officer at 4% is very low. Hence, we direct the A.O. to gie the rebate for self-supervision at the rate of 10%. Coming to the rate adopted by the Dept. valuation officer we hold that the CPWD rate is higher than KPWD rates. KPWD rate alone can be applicable to a place like Dharwad Hence, we hold that the Assessing Officer as well as commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hubli are not justified in accepting the valuation report filed by the Dept. Valier without any modification. 10. Therefore, in the facts of this case, when the assessee, though has not maintained the books of accounts, has declared the investment in residential house at ₹ 1,45,32,000/- as on 31.3.2004 in place like Sainagar, Gangavathi Road, siddanur, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee to substantiate his assertion as to the source of this capital outlay. 12. In this case, it is not in dispute that the asessee withdrew sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and ₹ 2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural Income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of ₹ 7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days, a cash deposit is made to the extent of about ₹ 5,20,000/- towards loan account, it cannot be said that the source of the said deposit is not properly explained. Merely because there is a delay of 40 days from the date of withdrawal of the money from the bank account to the date of deposit in the loan account. Once money is shown to be in the account and withdrawn, what the asessee did with the money till it was actually deposited, is not the concern of the Department. As long as the source is explained and established and when the money is withdrawn from a savings bank account and paid to discharge loan by deposit in to a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. In that interregnum period, if the ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
