9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order deleting addition for unexplained investment in construction of house - Valuation Officer's report - Construction period discrepancy - Cross-objection filed by assessee. Analysis: The appeal by the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,11,800 for unexplained investment in constructing the first floor of a house. The construction commenced in 1992 and continued until 30th Sept., 1993. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter to the Approved Valuation Officer (AVO), who estimated the construction cost at Rs. 3,32,300. The AO treated the difference between this amount and the investment shown by the assessee as unexplained, resulting in the addition of Rs. 1,11,800. However, the CIT(A) disagreed with the AO, stating that the addition was unjustified as the construction extended beyond the period considered by the AO, and the AO had not given the Valuation Officer an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered whether the construction was completed by 31st March, 1993, as claimed by the AO, or continued until 30th Sept., 1993, as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently maintained that the construction was ongoing until 30th Sept., 1993. The assessee provided evidence such as bills for materials purchased after 31st March, 1993, to support this claim. The Departmental Valuer's report, based on an inspection on 9th Feb., 1994, also indicated that the construction was complete by that date, aligning with the assessee's assertion. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the AO's assessment, including the bills being in the name of the assessee's husband, who supervised the construction, and adjustments made by the Valuer. Considering these factors, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. During the proceedings, the assessee raised an alternative argument citing a Supreme Court decision to challenge the reference made to the Valuer by the AO. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the legal precedent, declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. In the cross-objection, the assessee contested the Revenue's appeal grounds, which were already addressed in favor of the assessee in the main appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.
|
