9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2848 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in construction of residential building - Addition merely on the basis of DVO s report - CIT(A) has deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Mere valuation report is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal of the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue was in a position to lay its hands on any material exhibiting the unexplained investment made by the assessee, over and above one stated in the books of accounts. FAA is of the opinion that the addition cannot be made merely on the basis of DVO s report, and there should be some other incriminating material to support the case of the Revenue. No reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A), which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the construction of a residential building. 2. Validity of cross-objections filed by the assessee. Issue 1: Deletion of Addition Made by the AO on Account of Unexplained Investment in Construction of Residential Building The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 6,31,300/- made by the AO for unexplained investment in the construction of a residential building. The facts of the case reveal that a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of the Colourtex Group, including the assessee's premises. The AO, dissatisfied with the cost of construction shown in the books, referred the matter to the valuation officer. The valuation officer's report indicated discrepancies between the declared cost and the estimated cost, leading the AO to add Rs. 6,31,300/- as unexplained investment. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the properties were registered with stamp authorities and recorded in the books of accounts. No incriminating documents or evidence were found during the search. The CIT(A) held that merely relying on the valuation report without any other evidence of unaccounted investment was not justified. The decision was supported by various judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court in Ushakant N. Patel v. CIT and the Rajasthan High Court in Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which emphasized that section 50C applies only for capital gains and not for unexplained investments under section 69/69B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing judgments from various High Courts, including CIT v. Jayendra N. Shah, CIT v. Vasudev Construction, and CIT v. Berry Plastics P. Ltd., which consistently held that the DVO's report alone cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence of unexplained investment. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to present any material evidence of unexplained investment beyond the DVO's report, thus confirming the CIT(A)'s order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 2: Validity of Cross-Objections Filed by the Assessee The assessee filed cross-objections in response to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that under sub-section 4 of section 253, the respondent is authorized to file cross-objections within 30 days of receiving notice of the appeal. However, the cross-objections must demonstrate specific grievances against any part of the CIT(A)'s order. In this case, the assessee's cross-objections did not indicate any grievances against the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the Tribunal found the cross-objections to be not maintainable in the present form and dismissed them. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. The order pronounced on 28th October 2015 in Ahmedabad confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond the DVO's report and found the assessee's cross-objections invalid.
|
