TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in confirming the order of A.O. 2. Because the ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the valuation of the property disclosed by the appellant was supported by the valuation report of the Registered Vauler and the A.O. has not rejected the valuation report before referred the matter for DVO. 3. Because the Id. A.O. was not justified in not accepting the valuation report of Registered Valuer, which was based on item wise method. 4. Because the Id. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that this issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant by the hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Agra in the case Shri Amol Chand Varshney Sewa Sansthan vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aligarh in ITA No. 198 199/Agra 2012 vide dated 22-03-2013. 5. Because the Id. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has provided approved drawing, actual plan and structural drawings to the DVO as required and hence valuation of property by plinth area method is wrong and contrary to the facts. 6. Because the Id. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 78,56,381/- in valuation of property on estimated basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the building was more higher side than shown by the assessee. Thus, to examine the veracity of the claim of investment of ₹ 248.61/- Lakhs in construction, Valuation Cell of the Department was requested under the provisions of section 142A (1) of the IT Act to value the property so as to arrive at the actual cost of construction. 8. Sections 142A(1) and (2), as amended by Finance (No.-2) Act 2014, read as follows: 142A. Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases.-(1) For the purposes of making an assessment or re-assessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of dealing with such reference, have all the powers that he has under section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 9. The extant section 142A was substituted for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference to the Valuation Officer. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, the report of the Valuation Officer cannot form the foundation for rejection of the books of account. 10. In the context of the controversy in issue it may also be germane to notice the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, which provided that where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer records that he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, etc., the Assessing Officer can make a best judgment assessment. In other words, before proceeding to estimate the value of any investment the Assessing Officer has to record that he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. 11. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of the Uttara-khand High Court in CTT v. Bhawan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had any doubt regarding the cost of construction or that he was not justified regarding the correctness or completeness of the books of account. Before making the reference to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the fair price of construction, the Assessing Officer does not appear to have ascertained the correctness or otherwise of the cost of construction shown the assessee in its books of account. Thus, prior to making the reference the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer has not ascertained as to what was the defect in the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in returns of income. Moreover, it is apparent that the only reason for making the addition under section 69 of the Act is that there is a difference the cost of construction as determined by the Valuation Officer and as shown by the assessee. At no stage of the assessment proceedings does the Assessing Officer appear to have mentioned that the books of account are defective or that the cost of construction as shown in the books of account is not the true cost of construction. Thus, while making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any defect in the books of acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
