TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n making addition of Rs. 46,555 towards share of difference in the cost of construction to the income of the appellant. The CIT(A) erred in working the cost of construction of the building at Rs. 13,21,024 as against Rs. 11,34,805 declared by the owners, because: (i) The CIT(A) erred in upholding addition at 3 per cent on account of building efforts. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in allowing rebate of self supervision on account of contractor's profit at 5 per cent as against claim of the appellant at 10 per cent and the basis relied upon by CIT(A) in not allowing claim of the appellant in full are not proper. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the DVO while valuing cost of construction had applied CPWD rates which worked out at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,000 claimed in connection with proceedings under s. 80VV of the IT Act. 6. Any other ground as may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. In these appeals, the assessees have raised an additional common ground of appeal, which read as under: "Additional ground of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO had no power to refer the case to the Valuation Officer for determination of cost of construction of house property." 3.1 As regards to the admission of additional ground of appeal, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249 : (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), wherein it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cost of construction was divided in equal share amongst the co-owners. 3.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A), Jalandhar, made an addition of Rs. 46,555 towards share of difference in the cost of construction in each case and also worked out the cost of construction of the building at Rs. 13,21,024 as against Rs. 11,34,805 declared by the co-owners. 3.3 After hearing the learned representatives of both the parties at length, we find that one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessees, Sh. Ravish Sood, was that the AO was not competent to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the cost of construction since there was no provision in the IT Act which empowers him to make such reference. Reliance was plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation Officer under s. 55A of the IT Act and of a commission issued under s. 75, r/w O. 26, r. 9 of the Code are different." From the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be clear that the provision of s. 55A deals with the capital gains only and, therefore, the AO was not justified in referring the valuation to the DVO under the aforesaid provisions. Furthermore, it has been held that a report by the Valuation Officer under s. 55A is, on the other hand, the outcome of an inquiry held by the Valuation Officer himself and reflects his opinion on the evidence before him. In fact, such a report would not be the result of an inquiry by the AO under the provisions of s. 133(6) or s. 142(2) of the IT Act. The Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
