2008 (4) TMI 317 - HC - Income Tax

Investment made in construction of building from undisclosed sources - 1. Whether the assessee was under mandatory obligation to get valuation report from a technically qualified person in support of the value of construction shown by her in her books of account. - 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the valuation done by the Revenue without rejecting the books of account submitted by the assessee. - The assessee has shown investment in the building at Rs.26.99 lakhs. The Assessing Officer found that the claim of investment is not supported with sufficient proof. The value of the building was then got assessed by the Income-tax Department through the Departmental Valuation - Officer - As per the valuation report, estimated investment in the construction of the building was Rs. 46,5 7,430 Assessing Officer added Rs. 19,57,092 to the income of the assessee treating the said amount as additional investment made in the construction of the building from undisclosed sources under section 69 - In the impugned order Appellate Tribunal restricted the addition to 10 lakh and partly allowed the assessee s appeal authorities below have already applied their mind to the facts of the case and we are not inclined to interfere with the factual satisfaction recorded ultimately by the Tribunal. Tribunal was justified in accepting the valuation done by the revenue without rejecting the books of account submitted by the assessee as assessee herself admitted at the spot that the accounts were not complete

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandatory obligation to get valuation report for construction value.
2. Acceptance of valuation by Revenue without rejecting books of account.

Issue 1: Mandatory obligation to get valuation report for construction value

The appellant, an individual running a nursing home, declared an investment of Rs.26.99 lakhs in a newly constructed building. The Assessing Officer (AO) found this claim unsupported and had the building's value assessed by the Departmental Valuation Officer, valuing it at Rs.46,57,430. The AO added Rs.19,57,092 to the appellant's income, treating it as additional undisclosed investment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals II) upheld this addition, leading to an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the added amount to Rs.10 lakhs. The appellant argued that there was no legal requirement to obtain a valuation report from a technically qualified person and that the AO's decision to involve the Valuation Officer was unjust. The court noted that while the law does not mandate valuation reports for professionals like the appellant, discrepancies in accounts can prompt further assessment. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that factual findings by lower authorities should not be disturbed unless against the law.

Issue 2: Acceptance of valuation by Revenue without rejecting books of account

The appellant contended that the Revenue erred in accepting the valuation without rejecting the books of account. The court disagreed, stating that the AO's decision to involve the Valuation Officer was justified based on discrepancies noted during inspection. The court highlighted that the appellant herself acknowledged incomplete accounts, supporting the need for external valuation. The court emphasized that the rejection of books of account was implied due to discrepancies confirmed by the valuation report. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' factual assessments and the reliance on the Valuation Officer's report.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to partially allow the appeal, emphasizing the importance of factual findings by lower authorities and the justified involvement of the Valuation Officer based on discrepancies in the appellant's accounts. The court clarified that while there may not be a mandatory requirement for valuation reports in certain cases, discrepancies can prompt further assessment, and factual findings should not be disturbed unless contrary to the law.