9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer had included on amount of Rs. 5,273 as income from house property. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, after perusal of the records was of the view that the Income-tax Officer had not made proper enquiries regarding the investment in the house construction. He also issued show cause notice regarding the two cash deposits. Ultimately t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was a difference of Rs. 11,000 between the cost of construction shown by the assessee and as valued by the valuer. He also estimated that Rs. 5,000 must have been spent for sanitary fittings etc. He, therefore, estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,10,000. Considering all these facts the Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to add Rs. 16,000 to the assessee s income. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Commissioner has not brought any material on record to show that there was any prejudice to the revenue by the Income-tax Officer accepting the cost of construction of Rs. 93,000 as shown by the assessee. It was also submitted that the Commissioner has surmises about the sanitary fittings though that was take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer. 4. We have very carefully considered the facts of the case and we find that for the assessment year 1971-72 no materials have been brought on record to clearly establish that there was a prejudice caused to the Revenue as a result of acceptance of the cost of construction as shown by the assessee. The Commissioner has basically accepted the valuer s report. According to the valuer s rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
