9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. (b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not disposing of the objections raised by the assessee on the Valuation Report of the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sent the assessee's valuation report of the approved Valuer by Ministry of Finance along with the objections to the DVO for his comments being technical person instead of rejecting the same in summary manner without having technical qualification. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. Assessee has also raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the DVO did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, hence the valuation report and the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld.AO and subsequently confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the same may be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the DVO did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee due to the fact that as per section 142A (3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 that the Valuation Officer for the purpose of estimating the value of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the DVO to arrive at a final valuation of Rs. 1.02 crores. IV. The valuer of the assessee has given no reasoning as to why the cost should be reduced on account of flooring, paints done, external finishing work, false-ceiling, big hall rooms etc. V. Also, there is no finding in the report of the private valuer as to why the contention that a benefit of Rs. 12 lacs should be given for the direct labour employed be accepted in absence of any supporting documentary evidence. VI. So, the difference in the valuation report submitted by the assessee from the report of the DVO can be ascribed to the fact that the assessee has claimed deductions on account of various items mentioned at Serial No. a to h above for which no supporting claim has been filed. VII. It is apparent from above discussion that the valuation report submitted by the assessee has not claimed any benefit on account of PWD Rates but only on account of excess deductions claimed as mentioned above. From the forgoing discussion, it is clear that the difference in cost as calculated by the Valuer of the assessee is because of the above reasons. The DVO has calculated the cost of the property as per the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir family members directed under their own supervision but no supporting documents, bills, vouchers were submitted by the assessee in support of this. Therefore, this fact has not been considered in the report'' In the report submitted by the private valuer of the assessee, a benefit of Rs. 12,07,425/- has been taken on account of direct labour employed but no supporting evidence for the same has been annexed by the private valuer in his report under consideration. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that the DVO recorded a clear finding of the absence of any personal supervision during the construction and the private valuer also could not place forth any supporting document for claiming deduction of Rs. 12,07,425/- on this count. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is not tenable. Finally, the AR has submitted that the benefit of 10% in valuation should have been allowed as per various judicial pronouncements. It is important to emphasize here that the benefit of 10% is not a statutory benefit but is given only when the evidence of personal supervision in the construction of the property is available. As the said issue has already been discussed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer under Income tax Act, accordingly the Valuation Report and consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) Ludhiana is void abinitio, illegal and bad in law, hence the same may be quashed. The contention of the Ld. AR has no merits in challenging the powers of the AO u/s 55A of the Act to make reference to DVO to determine value of the construction of property, based on CPWD rates. Meaning thereby, where value of construction was higher than that claimed by assessee, Assessing Officer could issue commission under section 131(1)(d) to DVO to ascertain fair market value under section 55A of the Act. Our view gets support by the judgement of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA delivered in the case of "Krishan Kumar Jhamb vs. Income-tax Officer",[2009] 179 Taxman 141 (Punjab & Haryana) where it was observed that where valuation report of approved valuer submitted by assessee suffered from grave infirmity inasmuch as it did not take into account a number of items used by assessee for construction of property, revenue was correct in adopting value determined by DVO based on CPWD rates. The decision cited by the Ld. AR are distinguishable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass the assessment orders on the basis of legal principle, but while doing so, has not discussed the show cause filed by the petitioners and the relevant documents which they had brought on record in their defence, including the valuation report. 13. In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed the objections raised by the assessee on the Valuation Report of the DVO with the support of documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee and without adjudicating on the merits of the case, the CIT(A) has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of legal principle, but while doing so, has not discussed the objections filed by the appellant and the relevant documents which they had brought on record in their defence, including the valuation report. That's being the position, we see no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioners, on the contrary, we are satisfied that the order passed is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances, we consider it deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of determination of value of investment in construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
