TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has maintained books of account, balance sheet and profit and loss account for the three years and filed the material documentary evidence with year wise break up of investment made by the assessee in the construction whereas in the present case, assessee has not maintained books of account and fail to furnish bills and vouchers in support of material purchased to substantiate the cost of construction of the house. Since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account to record all the expenditure of the property so the present case is distinguishable on facts and would be no help to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A No.199/Agra/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2019 - Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Karishma, Adv. For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Bajpai, CIT. DR. ORDER PER DR. M. L. MEENA, A.M.: This appeal emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Agra [(in short the ld. CIT(A)], dated 11.02.2013, for A.Y. 2008-09, challenging confirmation of addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed in the books of account and once, this condition is satisfied, the quantum of such investment made can be ascertained by the AO by making reference u/s 142A in order to made addition u/s 69 or 69B. In order to examine the above contention of the Ld. AR, I have gone through the assessment record. In order to examine the correctness of the cost of construction of the property under consideration, the AO required the assessee (appellant) vide his notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 08.09.2009, to produce relevant books of a/c, bills, vouchers etc. In response to this query, the assessee (appellant) replied that no books of account are maintained. It has also been found that the assessee has surrendered an income of ₹ 25,00,000/- on account of investment in construction of this property during the search conducted in Shanker Gutkha Group to which, the assessee(appellant) belongs and the same has been shown in her return of income. This surrender was made because many bills and vouchers for purchase of materials used in construction of this property was found during search and these expenditures could not be explained from the known source of the income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esign for the construction of the said house property and even as per his Valuation Report, the cost of construction has been computed at ₹ 1,03,59,000/- as compared to ₹ 92,82,560/- declared by the assessee (appellant). Therefore, it has been found that as per the valuation report of the registered valuer as obtained by the assessee (appellant) herself, the cost of valuation of construction of the property is coming more than what has been declared by her without maintaining proper record of the construction of this property. Such fact showing the valuation of property determined by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee (appellant) coming more than the value declared by her clearly shows that action of the AO for referring the property for 'valuation u7s 142A was justified and therefore, the Ld. AR did not argue further for the ground taken to challenge the validity of reference made u/s 142A and he only argued on the reasonability of the value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer that has been dealt by me in the subsequent para while dealing with Ground No. 4. After considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, as discovered by me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be sustained at ₹ 28,36,777/- by allowing the relief of 37,54,541/-. 7. It is also observed by the ld. CIT(A) that the AO made addition u/s 69C which did not appear to be correct because that section is not referred to in the provisions of section 142A for the purpose of making reference of valuation officer, if any estimation is required to be made for the purpose of determining the unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, he has decided to apply provisions of section 69B as more appropriate in the assessee s case and accordingly directed the AO to make the addition of ₹ 28,36,777/- u/s 69B as against section 69C for unaccounted investment of the assessee of construction of the house property which was not disclosed by her in the return of income. 8. That the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceeding initiated u/s 142(1) of the Act in consequence to action taken u/s 153C of the Act in earlier year is wrong, bad in law and against the facts of the case. That the ld. CIT(A) has now justified in holding that the reference made by the AO to the valuation officer u/s 142A of the IT Act to be valid that the facts that construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f construction of the house. Since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account to record all the expenditure of the property so the present case is distinguishable on facts and would be no help to the assessee. 15. In the case of Indira Hospital Research Diagnostic Centre (supra) held that: Section 142A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Estimate by valuation officer in certain cases -Assessment year 2001-02 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer referred matter to District Valuation Officer for estimating cost of construction of hospital building on ground that account of assessee had not been properly maintained - Subsequently, on basis of report of DVO, assessment order was passed making certain additions - First Appellate Authority and Tribunal sustained 25 per cent of addition - Assessee thus filed instant appeal contending that since Assessing Officer had not specifically set aside accounts maintained by assessee, matter could not be remitted to DVO and, therefore, impugned order passed by Tribunal was perverse and arbitrary - It was apparent from records that Tribunal had taken a specific view that matter wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
