TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer towards unexplained cost of construction under section 69B of the Act , erred in directing the Assessing Officer that ₹ 8.5 lakhs paid as self assessment tax on 27.01.2007 for assessment year 2006-07 be given credit for assessment year 2002-03 to 2005-06 and qua interest under section 234D of the Act , alleging the same to be wrongly deleted. 3. In support of the pleadings, the Revenue would vehemently argue that the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) granting aforesaid relief to the assessee are liable to be upset by restoring the additions made in assessment order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. In reply, the assessee would file a written memo of arguments and a copy of the order dated 31.01.2013 in I.T.A. Nos.992, 993, 994 995/Mds/2012 in the case of her husband Shri V. Selvam. In light thereof, she supported CIT(A) s order qua the issue of unexplained cost of construction. Similarly, qua 2nd issue raised by the Revenue, the assessee has placed reliance on the CIT(A) s order as well as reasons contained therein. Coming to the 3rd issue of interest under section 234D, the AR fairly conceded that the plea in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. 9. We have carefully examined the submissions of both parties and perused the orders of Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is that after estimation by the Valuation Officer, the cost of construction is liable to be taken as ₹ 251.36 lakhs. Opposing, the assessee has placed on record before us a brief paper book comprising order dated 31.01.2013 in I.T.A. Nos. 992 to 995/Mds/2012 (supra) in the case of her husband; wherein the very issue has been decided against the Revenue. After perusing the same, we find the assertions of the assessee to be correct. As has been clarified hereinabove, the assessee and her husband are co-owners of the property who raised the construction in question. In the case of assessee s husband, the CIT(A) has estimated the cost of construction as ₹ 183.78 lakhs by allowing 10% reduction from the estimate of the District Valuation Officer to accept the State PWD rate and further 10% relief from the estimated cost owing to self supervision. That being the case, in our view, the CIT(A) has proceeded on the correct assumption of the facts and deleted the addition. Hence, we hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n I.T.A. No. 1313/Mds/2012 decided hereinabove against the Revenue. Therefore, in these two appeals as well, the order of the CIT(A) under challenge is confirmed. I.T.A. No. 1317/Mds/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] 15. In this appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has wrongly directed the Assessing Officer to estimate assessee s income from her business pertaining to M/s. Anugraha Foodland and to allow depreciation relating to business income. The other ground raised is qua ₹ 8.5 lakhs paid on 27.06.2007 (supra). Both parties before us clarified that the 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is covered by our findings in I.T.A. No. 1313/Mds/2012, which is found to be correct. In view thereof, we proceed to decide the issue regarding estimation of income. 16. Facts pertaining to the ground of estimation of income are that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is owner/proprietor of a departmental store M/s. Anugraha Foodland which was covered in search . He found that the assessee had inventorised the stock in the books of ₹ 7,17,396/- as against physical stock of ₹ 19,00,500/-. In his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, we do not intend to interfere his well reasoned findings aforesaid of CIT(A). So, the ground is decided against the Revenue. I.T.A. No. 1318/Mds/2012[A.Y. 2007-08] 20. In this appeal, two substantive grounds raised by the Revenue challenge CIT(A) s order qua estimation of income @ 5% instead of 7% (supra) made by the Assessing Officer. The other ground challenges CIT(A) s order deleting the addition of ₹ 85.00 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under section 69B of the Act . 21. Both parties before us do not dispute that ground No. 1 is covered by our finding in I.T.A. No. 1317/Mds/2012 decided hereinabove. Therefore, ground No. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee. 22. Now, we come to addition of unexplained investment of ₹ 85.00 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under section 69B. Facts relevant to this ground are that on 09.04.2007, the assessee had purchased a vacant plot for ₹ 40.00 lakhs. Per Assessing Officer, she had obtained a bank loan of ₹ 85.00 lakhs on the basis of valuation report stating the worth of the property as ₹ 1,26,40,000/- and even in mortgage, its value declared i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual position. Accordingly, ground No. 1 aforesaid is decided in favour of the assessee. 26. Now, we come to ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue challenging CIT(A) s order deleting addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act amounting to ₹ 4,43,830/-. 27. Facts relevant to this ground are that the search in question had led the seizure of cash amount of ₹ 4,43,830/-. The assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer that an amount of ₹ 4,12,305/- had been accounted in the cash book of her departmental store (supra). Negating assessee s explanation, the Assessing Officer held that her transaction of purchase/sales in question had not been accounted and no evidence had been led that the cash balance was as per books. Therefore, in his view, the same had to be treated independently. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 4,43,830/- under section 69A in the nature of unexplained money. 28. In assessee s appeal preferred against the addition, the CIT(A) has accepted her contention and deleted the addition. In this background of facts, the issue has come before us. 29. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
