2010 (3) TMI 896 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of cost of construction - State PWD rates are to be adopted for valuation in place of CPWD rates adopted by the Assessing Officer Held that - PWD rates are applicable in the case of value of the property situated in a mofussil area - 15 per cent deduction apart from the deduction towards self-supervision should be given for matching the cost of construction estimated on the basis of CPVVD rates with the PWD rates - appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Justification of allowing relief towards cost of construction of kalyanamandapam by adopting State PWD rates over CPWD rates.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of allowing relief towards cost of construction

The appeal concerned the assessment year 2006-07 where the only issue was whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in allowing a relief of Rs. 15,41,684 towards the cost of construction of a kalyanamandapam by adopting State PWD rates for valuation instead of CPWD rates used by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, a civil contractor, had constructed the kalyanamandapam and shopping complex, and the cost of construction was initially admitted at Rs. 84,69,000 based on an approved valuer's report. However, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost at Rs. 1,11,32,000 using CPWD rates. The Assessing Officer then adopted the cost at Rs. 1,02,77,894 after a 10% rebate for self-supervision. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed a 15% deduction on the net value to match it with PWD rates, resulting in the deletion of Rs. 15,41,684 addition. The Departmental representative argued against this additional deduction, while the assessee's counsel supported it citing relevant case laws.

Issue 1 Analysis:

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and the material on record, noting that the deduction of Rs. 15,41,684 was equivalent to 15% of the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner's directions were based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in A. Abdul Rahim's case, where a 15% deduction on CPWD rates was deemed appropriate considering the self-supervision rebate already granted. Moreover, the Tribunal referred to the decision in K.K. Seshaiyer's case, emphasizing the importance of actual recorded costs and the applicability of PWD rates in mofussil areas. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that PWD rates should be applied for properties in mofussil areas, and a 15% deduction beyond self-supervision is justified to align CPWD-based valuations with PWD rates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to allow the relief towards the cost of construction by adopting State PWD rates over CPWD rates, as per the established legal principles and precedents from relevant High Court judgments.