2003 (6) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rcle-I, Meerut, the AO, both erred in assuring (sic) the assessee its self-declared cost of construction and period of construction. 4. That the learned CIT(A), Meerut, himself accepted the fact that the DVO had calculated the cost of construction by applying the plinth area rates of CPWD, which were meant for FCI godown, and rates adopted by the DVO were quite higher, but even then the learned CIT(A), Meerut, did not delete the total addition of Rs. 2,13,770. It is very much clear from the map of factory that what type of construction there is." 3. Ground No. 1 is general, hence, it does not require adjudication. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to the alleged error of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,000 which is 50 per cent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 70 will be added towards the income of the assessee. Against this order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO and upheld the addition for difference in the cost of construction at about 50 per cent of Rs. 2,13,770. Against this order of the CIT(A), the assessee, feeling aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. It has been held by the CIT(A) that the basic difference in the cost of construction is on account of the fact that the DVO has applied the CPWD rates meant for construction of FCI godowns whereas the registered valuer has calculated it on the basis of actual consumption of raw material and labour. Both the assessments of the DVO as well as registered valuer cannot be ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccepted and mentioned the fact in his order at para 3(a) of p. 3 of the order that the DVO had calculated the cost of construction by applying the plinth area rate of CPWD which were meant for FCI godowns and the registered valuer had estimated the cost of construction by estimating the actual material used therein. Despite these facts, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,06,770 and the balance addition has been sustained by him which is absolutely unfair and unwarranted in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances. He has further contended that how the addition could be made under s. 69 of the Act while the proper opportunity has not been given to the assessee to explain the investment made in the construction of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X