9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant" already stood assessed with the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) dated 22.07.2005 (ii) requisite condition for selection of case for scrutiny assessment have not been shown to have existed in terms of clause (ii) of sub-section(2) of section 143(3) of the "Act" and (iii) the basis for selection of the case of scrutiny was not communicated to the "appellant". ld."CIT(A)" should have held that the regular assessment order dated 26.12.2006 was bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 2. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition to the extent of Rs. 8,63,903/- by accepting the full value of consideration at Rs. 57,03,623/- as determined by the departmental valuation officer. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) Rules, 2005 vide Notification K.N 5-2490/11- 2005-500(87)2001, dated 30.5.2005 was clarificatory in nature. 7. BECAUSE without prejudice to the grounds raised hereinfore, the difference between the value determined by district valuation officer and declared by the "appellant" being only 15%, (approx.) the sale consideration declared in the registered sale deed deserved to be accepted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT, reported in (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Pat). 8. BECAUSE reliance placed by the "CIT(A)" on various judgments is mis-placed and the said judgments are also distinguishable on facts. 9. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the D.V.O. valued the property at Rs. 57.036 lac and the assessee had disclosed the sale consideration at Rs. 48,39,720/-. He submitted that the difference is only Rs. 8.639 lac, which is around 15.15% of the value as per D.V.O. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 (All) in support of the contention that as per this judgment, the correctness of the valuation report may be challenged in appeal. He also placed reliance on a Tribunal decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai vs. MIL Industries Ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 428 (ITAT [Chen]) in support of this contention that the valuation report of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese two demerits, the D.V.O. has allowed 10% rebate from DM Circle rate. The difference between the value declared by the assessee at Rs. 49.397 lac and as determined by D.V.O. at Rs. 57.036 lac, the difference is only Rs. 8.639 lac which works out to 15.15%. This is also to be noted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court rendered in the case of Bimla Singh vs. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Pat) available on pages 243 to 246 of the paper book, it was held that difference between cost of construction shown by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer being less than 15%, same is to be ignored for the purpose of addition. Hence, if it is accepted that the rebate allowed by D.V.O. on account of demerits is less, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
