9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 195 - HC - Income TaxInterpretation of section 69C - Whether the Tribunal is right in interpreting Section 69C and cognate provisions for upholding the addition towards cost of construction on the basis of report of the DVO - Held that - Following the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOTI Versus KAMDAR AND ASSOCIATES 2015 (1) TMI 234 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus Vijaykumar D. Gupta 2014 (4) TMI 860 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed and held that the AO could not have made reference to the DVO without reference to the books of accounts and such reliance on the DVO s books of accounts was not justified - there was no material, what to say an incriminating material, in the possession of the Revenue Department - while making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the AO has not recorded any defect in the books of account nor has he rejected the same - except for the difference in the estimated cost determined by the Valuation Officer and the actual cost as shown by the assessee, the AO has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in the construction of the building and that the books of account do not reflect the correct cost of construction thus, the report made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such an invalid reference could not have been made the basis for addition u/s 69 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 69C and cognate provisions for upholding the addition towards cost of construction based on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 69C: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment partially allowing the revenue's appeals. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Section 69C and related provisions in two tax appeals. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was observed that the Assessing Officer cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer without rejecting the books of accounts. The Tribunal in that case had deleted the entire addition as the Assessing Officer had not provided any incriminating evidence or rejected the books of accounts. The Court emphasized that unless the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot refer to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on this legal principle. 2. Application of Legal Precedents: The High Court reiterated that the Assessing Officer must reject the books of accounts before referring to the Valuation Officer for determining the cost of construction. The Court analyzed the assessment order and found that there was no defect mentioned in the books of accounts, and the reference to the Valuation Officer was made without ascertaining the correctness of the cost of construction shown by the assessee. The Court emphasized that the only reason for the addition under Section 69 was the difference in the estimated cost by the Valuation Officer and the actual cost shown by the assessee. Since there was no defect in the books of accounts, the reference to the Valuation Officer was deemed invalid, as per the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case. 3. Conclusion and Decision: The High Court concluded that the question raised in the appeals was identical to the previous case where the Tribunal's decision was upheld. Therefore, the Court answered the question against the department and in favor of the assessee. It was established that the Tribunal was correct in interpreting Section 69C and related provisions for upholding the addition towards the cost of construction based on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the question was resolved in favor of the assessee. In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the proper interpretation of Section 69C and related provisions concerning the addition towards the cost of construction based on the Valuation Officer's report. The decision highlighted the necessity for the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts before referring to the Valuation Officer and emphasized the importance of corroborating additions with evidence. The legal precedents cited underscored the invalidity of the reference to the Valuation Officer in the absence of rejected books of accounts. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee based on these legal principles and upheld the Tribunal's decision.
|
