TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebate for self supervision and procurement of materials at 5%, estimated the cost of construction at ₹ 55,99,821/-, as against the cost admitted by the assessee at ₹ 38,00,000/-. The Tribunal without assigning any reasons has fixed the cost of construction at ₹ 20,00,000/- by stating that it would be fair and reasonable to determine the value at that rate. The Tribunal failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mr. Justice N. Sathishkumar For the Appellant : Mr.R.Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 08.02.2008 in ITA Nos.1796 and 1826/Mds/2007, for the Assessment year 2004-05. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion at ₹ 89,64,700/-. 5.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai (for brevity 'CITA'). The Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.2007 fixed the cost of construction at ₹ 55,99,821/-. Both the assessee as well as the Revenue, were on the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal failed to consider the correctness of the order passed by CIT(A) but faulted the Assessing Officer. 7. In our considered view, the Tribunal ought to have assigned reasons as to why it was of the opinion that ₹ 70,00,000/- should be fixed as the construction of the hotel building. It is not sufficient to just state that it would be fair and reasonable. Why such value is fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
