9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of construction of a house. 2. Reopening of assessments under Section 147(a). 3. Validity of the Departmental Valuer's report. 4. Addition of income from undisclosed sources. 5. Rejection of account books and vouchers. 6. Adoption of cost indices. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Construction of a House The central issue in this case was the valuation of a double-storeyed residential building constructed by the assessee, a doctor, during the period from July 1984 to September 1986. The assessee claimed the cost of construction to be Rs. 2,78,000, while the registered valuer estimated it at Rs. 2,30,000 after deducting 10% for self-supervision. However, the Departmental Valuer estimated the cost at Rs. 3,55,077 after conceding 7.5% for self-supervision. The Assessing Officer adopted the Departmental Valuer's report, leading to a proposed addition of Rs. 77,000 as income from 'undisclosed sources.' 2. Reopening of Assessments Under Section 147(a) The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 to reopen the assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, alleging that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal held that the material facts necessary for the assessment were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee, including the cost of construction. The Tribunal found no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, making the reopening under Section 147(a) invalid. 3. Validity of the Departmental Valuer's Report The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Valuer's report could not be the sole basis for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must first reject the account books maintained by the assessee before relying on the Departmental Valuer's report. Since the Assessing Officer did not reject the account books or the 100% vouchers provided by the assessee, the reference to the Departmental Valuer was deemed invalid. 4. Addition of Income from Undisclosed Sources The Assessing Officer added Rs. 77,000 as income from 'undisclosed sources' based on the difference between the Departmental Valuer's estimate and the cost admitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that without rejecting the account books and vouchers, the addition based on the Departmental Valuer's report could not be sustained. The Tribunal cited several decisions supporting the view that proper books of accounts and vouchers negate the need for relying on a valuation report for additions. 5. Rejection of Account Books and Vouchers The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not find any defects in the account books or the 100% vouchers maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, stating that without pointing out defects in the account books, the Assessing Officer could not rely on the Departmental Valuer's report. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record a finding about the falsity or unreliability of the evidence before considering a valuation report. 6. Adoption of Cost Indices The Tribunal criticized the Departmental Valuer for adopting the Delhi cost index instead of the cost index of Kurnool as per the CBDT's instructions. The Tribunal noted that using the Delhi cost index led to an inflated estimate of the construction cost. The Tribunal held that if the cost index of Kurnool had been used, the estimated cost would have been substantially lower and more in line with the assessee's declared cost. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals, holding that the reopening of assessments was invalid and the additions based on the Departmental Valuer's report were not justified. The Tribunal found that the cost of construction declared by the assessee was supported by proper account books and 100% vouchers, and there was no basis for rejecting these records. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were found to be infructuous and were also dismissed.
|
