2007 (7) TMI 242 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee constructed a house - additions made by AO on basis of difference between the cost of construction determined by the Valuation Officer & as declared by the appellant assessee contending that if cost is assessed on basis of local PWD rates then there will be no difference CIT accordingly granted 20% deduction from the total cost - What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact hence order of CIT & ITAT is correct and could not be interfered

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment on cost of construction valuation for assessment year 1995-96.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment on the cost of construction for the assessment year 1995-96. The appellant constructed a house in Udaipur, and the Valuation Officer determined the cost of construction at Rs. 65,54,555, higher than the declared cost of Rs. 39,50,000. The Assessing Officer made additions based on this difference in three assessment years. The only ground pressed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was the addition made due to the difference in the cost of construction. The appellant argued that the Valuation Officer used CPWD rates instead of local PWD rates, which would eliminate the difference. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted this argument and granted a 20% deduction from the total cost of construction, reducing the addition amount. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the DVO due to lack of proper expense details from the appellant. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found that the 20% deduction was appropriate based on the valuation by the DVO. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, citing a previous High Court decision. The appellant did not request to hear cross-appeals together, and the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and well-reasoned orders. The High Court held that the valuation issue was a question of fact, properly decided by the lower authorities, and no substantial question of law arose. The court found no infirmity in the orders and dismissed the appeal, considering the consistency in decisions and the factual findings by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference was warranted as the lower authorities had made just and proper decisions based on evidence and submissions. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision and found no grounds for interference. No other points were raised before the court, and no costs were awarded.