9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 (Jodh.) of 2006 & 323 (Jodh.) of 2008 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2010 - Shri B.R. Jain, and Shri K.S.S. Prasad Rao, JJ. Represented By: Shri R.A. Verma for the Appellant. Shri Mahendra Gargeiya for the Respondent. B.R. Jain, Accountant Member These two appeals by the Revenue are against the orders dt. 13th Oct., 2006 and 18th Feb., 2008 of learned CIT(A), Udaipur. The common grounds raised in both the appeals read as under : "On the facts and in present circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : (1) deleting the addition of Rs. 18,46,889 made on account of undisclosed investment under section 69 in construction of house by rejecting the report of DVO in a summary manner. Additional grounds : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental valuer on 28th Dec., 2005 who determined the cost of construction of the property at Rs. 30,24,000. The assessee raised objections to the method and manner and basis adopted for valuing the property. He also objected to the actual area constructed and type and description of the property constructed and adopted by the DVO in his report leading to exorbitant and unreal valuation. The AO forwarded the objections of the assessee to the DVO and receiving reply finally rejected the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, difference in valuation by Rs. 18,76,889 between the cost declared by assessee and the cost determined by DVO was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and addition made. Likewise for parity of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of construction itself whereas the report by the DVO was prepared much after the date of survey. He, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, accepted that the report of Shri S.M. Jain, the approved valuer is most appropriate and acceptable and addition made on the basis of report of DVO, thus, stood deleted in both the cases. 7. We have heard the parties and have carefully perused the entire material on record. Essentially, there were dispute in the area of construction and the fact as to whether it is RCC frame structure or load bearing walls leading to difference in the cost of construction elucidated by the Government approved valuer of the assessee and the DVO to whom the AO made a reference under section 142A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority may have. In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, the appellate authority is vested with all plenary powers which the subordinate authority has in the matter. This view finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ramcherra Tea Co. Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 979. The Revenue, however, laid no record before us to show that the learned CIT(A) has acted unreasonably or beyond the scope of his powers. It is also not shown that the independent valuer committed any error of fact or law. We, therefore, finding no infirmity in the decision reached by learned CIT(A), reject the grounds raised in appeals. 8. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
