2010 (9) TMI 713 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction of 20 per cent - Valuation report - Merely by stating that building has been constructed in a beautiful manner and without any outside help such building cannot have constructed, cannot be the basis for drawing inference that the building was not constructed under self supervision - complete books of account have been maintained by the assessee and they have not been rejected either by the lower authorities - Held that section 142A is not applicable on the facts of the present case because the Assessing Officer has not stated anywhere in his order that books of account prepared by the assessee and the cost of construction shown by the assessee has not been recorded in the books of account Undisclosed investment - It is amply proved that the assessee has maintained books of account for constructing the house and they were not found defective - It has been found that vehicles and telephone has been used for business purposes and, therefore, disallowance was not correct - The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further noted that the addition made on account of capital account which is the loan and advances already given which was shown in the balance-sheet and refund from income-tax, therefore, there is no reason to make any addition - In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed, and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of 20% on account of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates.
2. Deduction of 12% for self-supervision.
3. Gross profit rate reduction to 13% instead of 14%.
4. Deleting various disallowances on account of petrol and conveyance expenses, depreciation on vehicles, telephone and mobile expenses, traveling expenses, unexplained addition in capital account, and sundry balances written off.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of 20% on account of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates:
The Department's appeal contested the benefit of a 20% deduction based on CPWD rates rather than PWD rates adopted by the DVO for valuation purposes. The Departmental representative emphasized reliance on the Assessing Officer's order and the DVO's valuation report, which did not consider self-supervision due to lack of submitted vouchers. The assessee argued that complete books of account were maintained and not rejected by the Assessing Officer, citing precedents from the Rajasthan High Court. The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) justified in directing the 20% deduction based on CPWD rates, referencing previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal upheld that the books of account maintained by the assessee were not found defective, thus no addition could be made based on the DVO's higher valuation.

2. Deduction of 12% for self-supervision:
The Department opposed the 12% deduction for self-supervision granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), arguing it was without basis as the DVO did not consider self-supervision due to lack of vouchers. The assessee maintained that the construction was under self-supervision, supported by complete books of account and vouchers. The Tribunal upheld the 12% deduction, noting no evidence from the Department that the building was constructed under external supervision. The Tribunal reiterated that without rejecting the books of account, no addition could be justified based on the DVO's higher valuation.

3. Gross profit rate reduction to 13% instead of 14%:
The Department contested the reduction of the gross profit rate to 13% from 14% applied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had agreed to a 13% rate to buy peace, but the Assessing Officer applied 14% without sufficient reasoning. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed acceptance of the 13% rate agreed by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this direction, noting the Assessing Officer failed to justify the 14% rate, thus confirming the 13% rate for deducing trading income.

4. Deleting various disallowances:
The Department's appeal included grounds for deleting disallowances of petrol and conveyance expenses, depreciation on vehicles, telephone and mobile expenses, traveling expenses, unexplained addition in capital account, and sundry balances written off. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed relief based on factual findings, noting vehicles and telephones were used for business purposes, and disallowances were ad hoc without material evidence. The Tribunal upheld these findings, agreeing with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the additions were made mechanically by the Assessing Officer without justification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on all contested grounds. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining and not rejecting proper books of account and the necessity for the Assessing Officer to provide sufficient reasoning for any additions or disallowances. The order was pronounced on September 28, 2010.

← Previous Next →