2012 (8) TMI 584 - AT - Income Tax

Revising the estimated cost of construction by CIT(A) - cost of construction assessed by Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) - revenue contested against CIT(A) in allowing further relief over and above the in toto relief allowed - Held that - CIT(A)has not made any fundamental interference in the valuation made by the DVO and accepted by the assessing authority as modifications granted is in valuation of swimming pool were not on any technical ground, but on an accounting ground as the assessee had constructed the swimming pool and other structures in the subsequent year, and this modification worked out to Rs. 9,89,425/-. Modification in granting 3% reduction towards direct purchase of materials as direct and bulk purchase of materials normally yield a reasonable discount in the procurement price. Therefore, relief of 3% granted by CIT(A) is justifiable. Modification granted by reduction of 15% from CPWD rates which have been adopted by the DVO is not unreasonable as comparing it to CPWD rates, State PWD rates are less. On the basis of this difference, reliefs have been granted to the assessees in a number of cases both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Courts. Therefore the reduction of 15% is only just and proper - contention of the assessee that CIT(A) has not considered the entire amount spent by the assessee on the construction of the swimming pool is not acceptable as the CIT(A) has considered the same in his rectification proceedings - against revenue & assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of hotel building construction cost.
2. Disputes over modifications and deductions granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
3. Arguments regarding interest levy under sections 234A & 234B.

Analysis:

1. Valuation of hotel building construction cost:
The case involved appeals against the assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06 regarding the valuation of a hotel building constructed by the assessee. The Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) estimated the construction cost higher than the assessee's declared cost, which was subsequently adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made certain deductions and adjustments to the valuation, resulting in a revised estimate. Both the Revenue and the assessee challenged these findings before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Chennai.

2. Disputes over modifications and deductions:
The Revenue raised objections regarding the additional relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) beyond the relief previously allowed, citing procedural irregularities and jurisdictional issues. On the other hand, the assessee contested the valuation of the hotel building, highlighting discrepancies in the estimates provided by the Valuation Officer and questioning the basis for certain deductions made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal analyzed the modifications granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and found them to be justifiable, based on valid material and accounting principles. The Tribunal upheld the adjustments made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by both parties.

3. Arguments regarding interest levy:
The Tribunal addressed the contention raised by the assessee regarding the levy of interest under sections 234A & 234B, emphasizing that the levy of interest is consequential to the final determination of the addition made. The Tribunal concluded that the levy of interest is mandatory and not subject to separate adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the valuation of the hotel building construction cost and related modifications.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Chennai, in its judgment, provided a detailed analysis of the disputes related to the valuation of the hotel building construction cost, modifications made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the levy of interest under sections 234A & 234B, ultimately dismissing the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue.