2010 (6) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Power of CIT(A) - reference to valuation officer u/s 142A by CIT(A) - Held that -The first appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have. In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, the appellate authority is vested with all plenary powers which the subordinate authority has in the matter. This view finds support from the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. (1993 -TMI - 20375 - CALCUTTA High Court). The Revenue, however, laid no record before us to show that the learned CIT(A) has acted unreasonably or beyond the scope of his powers.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed investment under section 69 in construction of a house.
2. Violation of provisions of rule 46A by not providing an opportunity to the AO for offering comments on the valuation report.

Issue 1:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) regarding the addition of Rs. 18,46,889 made on account of undisclosed investment under section 69 in the construction of a house. The appellant claimed construction of a residential house jointly with his brother, commencing in April 1999 and completing in March 2001. The appellant did not maintain day-to-day accounts but obtained a report from an approved valuer stating the cost of construction at Rs. 11,42,000. The AO, however, referred the matter to a Departmental valuer who valued the construction at Rs. 30,24,000, leading to a significant difference. The CIT(A) then referred the issue to an independent valuer who concluded that the construction was on load-bearing walls, supporting the initial valuation by the approved valuer. The CIT(A) accepted the report of the approved valuer, considering it more appropriate and timely, and deleted the addition made based on the DVO's report. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the power of the CIT(A) to correct assessments and resolve disputes regarding the correct cost of construction.

Issue 2:
The additional ground raised was the violation of provisions of rule 46A by not allowing the AO an opportunity to offer comments on the valuation report obtained by him. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had the power to resolve controversies and had referred the matter to an independent valuer to determine the correct cost of construction. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted within his legal obligations and did not exceed his powers. It was highlighted that the CIT(A) has all the powers of the original authority and can take documents or evidence necessary for disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal cited a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to support the plenary powers of the appellate authority. As the Revenue failed to demonstrate any unreasonable action or error by the independent valuer, the Tribunal rejected the grounds raised in the appeals, ultimately dismissing both appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of undisclosed investment in house construction and the procedural aspects related to the valuation report, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the Tribunal.