9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee at No. 11, Palace Road, Bangalore, declared by the Assessee and that worked out by the District Valuation Officer by taking into consideration the contribution of building materials made by the tenants of Rs. 17,95,000 and 10 per cent supervision charges ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no difference in the cost of construction declared by the Assessee and that worked out by the District Valuation Officer, by ignoring the fact that the District Valuation Officer had worked out the cost of construction of the building without including the various expenses incurred towards cost of land, furniture, interest on borrowed capital and the work carried out by the tenant like false ceiling, aluminium par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained investment was added to the valuation made towards the cost of construction and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1294/2003 and 1293/Bang./2003. The Tribunal by a common order in both the appeals held that the additions made towards the unexplained expenditure had been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and after taking the cost of the construction Rs. 56,27,477 given by the assessee and the additions of Rs. 17,95,000 the same would come to Rs. 74,22,477. The same figure would be nearer to Rs. 75,94,000 which has been adopted by the DVO and accordingly deleted the additions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into account it would come to Rs. 17,95,000 by adding to the income declared towards construction at Rs. 56,27,477 and the Tribunal further held that the assessee had spent the amount up-to August 1996 which has not been taken into account and what is taken into account by the Assessing Officer is up-to December 1994 only and wherefore the finding given on the question of fact that having regard to the material on record, even if the contention of the revenue is accepted it would come to Rs. 75,94,000 which is nearer to valuation made by DVO and dismissed the appeal by deleting the unexplained investment. The said finding is at para 6. It is well settled that the Tribunal is the final authority on the question of finding of fact. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
