2014 (11) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed investment for the purchase of land and construction of house Held that - The DVO s estimation of cost of construction without furniture and fixture and that of the assessee s valuer, there is a minor difference of ₹ 1.22 lakhs - even if the AO had accepted the DVO s report in its entirety, the total addition under the head could not have exceeded ₹ 1.22 lakhs - the AO divided the undisclosed investment in the cost of construction in the three years - Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total of these three years of expenditure could exceed ₹ 1.22 lakhs which was the difference between the DVO s valuation and that of the valuation of the assessee s valuer, on the basis of which he filed the return - the assessee had made no disclosure towards the purchase of land in his statement during the search proceedings - The addition was made merely on the basis of the DVO s report without there being any other material - the DVO had also substantially relied on jantri rates and had made other references for arriving at the valuation as such no question of law arises for consideration Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to additions made by the Assessing Officer towards undisclosed investment for the purchase of land and construction of a house.
2. Dispute over the valuation of the cost of construction and purchase of land.
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the Revenue.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Additions Made by Assessing Officer:
The Revenue challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards undisclosed investment in the purchase of land and construction of a house for three assessment years. The assessee disclosed an undisclosed income of &8377; 1.50 crores during search proceedings, later retracting the statement. The Assessing Officer added amounts towards the cost of construction and land purchase, which were subsequently deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer's reliance on the DVO's report for making additions was not justified, especially considering the minor differences in the valuation reports submitted by the assessee's valuer and the DVO. The Commissioner held that no addition was warranted based on the DVO's report, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2. Dispute Over Valuation of Cost of Construction and Purchase of Land:
Regarding the cost of construction, the Assessing Officer added amounts for each assessment year, totaling &8377; 27.69 lakhs, despite minor differences in valuation reports. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted the similarity in the estimates provided by the DVO and the assessee's valuer, leading to the deletion of the additions. Similarly, in the case of the purchase of land, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the DVO's report was deleted by the Commissioner, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the higher valuation. Both authorities considered factual aspects and concluded that no legal issues arose, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

3. Appeal Against Commissioner's Order:
The Revenue appealed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal, which upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal provided additional reasons supporting the Commissioner's findings. The High Court, after reviewing the concurrent decisions of the lower authorities, found no grounds to interfere. The Court emphasized the factual nature of the issues and concluded that no legal questions were raised, resulting in the dismissal of all appeals.

In summary, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the lack of legal issues and the factual basis of the disputes over valuation and additions made by the Assessing Officer.