2009 (6) TMI 618 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained income Cost of construction of property Estimate based on relevant material - order of the Tribunal accepting the valuation of the approved valuer as against the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer Appeal dismissed in view of decision in A. Abdul Rahim v. ITO (2002 -TMI - 12395 - MADRAS High Court)

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the cost of constructions claimed by the assessee for two properties.
2. Whether the valuation made by the Departmental Valuer should be preferred over the valuation based on State PWD rates.
3. Whether the disallowance of advance receipts was correctly determined.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the cost of constructions claimed by the assessee for two properties. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal as it did not find any substantial question of law. The total cost of construction claimed by the assessee was Rs. 24.6 lakhs, but the Assessing Authority assessed the income at Rs. 35,99,050, disallowing certain gifts and advance receipts.

2. The issue of valuation arose concerning the properties, with the Departmental Valuer's valuation being compared to the valuation based on State PWD rates. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's adoption of State PWD rates justified and upheld the disallowance of advance receipts to the extent determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Departmental Valuation Officer accepted the construction details provided by the assessee for the relevant years, supporting the valuation based on State PWD rates of Rs. 3,079 per sq. m.

3. The Tribunal was satisfied with the calculation of disallowance of advance receipts and found no legal issue to entertain the appeal further. Referring to a previous court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the valuation of the approved valuer was reasonable and not arbitrary. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as there was no scope to entertain it further based on the findings and conclusions reached in the judgment.