2012 (12) TMI 751 - AT - Income Tax

Additions on account of unexplained investment on construction of house - deduction of Cost of construction incurred by the tenant - internal decoration of the building was carried out by the tenant - Held that - CIT(A) found that, the quality of material used was not of very high quality and he personally supervised the construction and taken care to purchase the material in person. - After considering the argument of the assessee, it is reasonable to allow 15% relief towards purchase of materials and self supervision. - The amount spent by the tenants was worked out at Rs. 7,39,850/-. This was not given credit by the Assessing Officer. It is common practice now a days to do internal work like decoration, furnishings, etc. by the corporate tenants to improve the ambience of the building. The order passed by the CIT(A) is a well-reasoned and detailed order giving valid reasons for partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. - Revenue s appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of rental income.
2. Addition on account of undisclosed investment in construction.
3. Disputed valuation of construction cost.
4. Appeal against CIT(A) order.

Assessment of Rental Income:
The appellant, engaged in coconut trading and share brokering, claimed a refund in the return of income for 2006-07. The Assessing Officer made additions for rental income and undisclosed investment in house construction. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals, leading to the Revenue's challenge. The D.R. argued discrepancies in the cost of construction and rental income, emphasizing lack of details provided by the appellant. In response, the appellant's counsel supported the CIT(A) order as well-reasoned.

Addition on Undisclosed Investment in Construction:
For the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer added amounts for unexplained construction costs. The CIT(A) considered the appellant's evidence, bills, and vouchers, granting relief for self-supervision and material purchase. The appellant's representative provided letters from tenants detailing internal decorations, which were not credited by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) found the order reasonable and detailed, allowing deductions based on valid reasoning.

Disputed Valuation of Construction Cost:
The D.R. contested the CIT(A) order on grounds of rental income and construction costs, highlighting discrepancies in the valuation report and lack of clarifications from the appellant. However, the CIT(A) decision was upheld as well-reasoned and detailed, with no identified infirmities. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals due to lack of merit.

Appeal Against CIT(A) Order:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals by the Revenue, as the CIT(A) order was deemed well-reasoned and detailed, with valid justifications for partly allowing the appellant's appeals. The Tribunal found no need for interference in the CIT(A) decision, ultimately upholding the order pronounced in June 2012 at Chennai.