9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These two separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against two separate orders of the CIT[A] - 35, New dated 27.03.2018 and 05.04.2018 pertaining to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 2. The common grievance in both the appeals relates to the addition made on the basis of Departmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made an addition of Rs. 1,66,439/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 and Rs. 37,61,578/- in Assessment Year 2007-08. 5. Additions were challenged before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that once the investments have been properly recorded in the books of account by the assessee, then without discarding/rejecting the books, the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -10 24,89,75,708 26,12,83,119 1,23,07,411 2010-11 12,09,71,650 12,69,51,543 59,79,893 Total 63,57,09,495 66,71,34,000 3,14,24,505 9. A perusal of the above chart clearly shows that the only reason for making the impugned addition is the difference between the investment shown in the books and the valuation done by the DVO. In our considered opinion, once the assessee is maintaining reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without the books of account being rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
