9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A)as DVO has not considered self supervision factor - in favour of assessee. Rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154 and charging interest u/s 234B and 234C - Held that:- The interest u/s.234B and 234C was charged originally in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and in the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), the interest was reduced accordingly thus it is therefore, clear that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) and the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application u/s.154 against which the appeal under consideration is filed. - As the assessee has not raised any ground of appeal against charging of interest u/s. 2234B & 234C in the order passed u/s.143(3), thus through the rectification application, the appellant wants to raise the ground against the charging of interest by quoting wrong facts in the rectification application which cannot be accepted As no fault of the assessee in adjusting the cash against the advance tax even after written request had been made by the assessee, direction to the A.O. to give the credit of Rs. 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of unexplained investment in the construction of the building on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO, on reference under Section 42A of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on the ground that no documentary evidence was found in respect of unaccounted expenditure, ignoring that the addition was not based on evidence found during search, but on account of difference in the cost shown by the assessee and the cost estimated by the DVO to whom references was made by the AO as the assessee had underinvoiced the input bills. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Amar Kumari Surana vs. CIT(226 ITR 344), wherein the Hon ble High Court held that if the assessee is not able to point out any mistake in the estimate of the valuation officer, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the assessee has shown less amount in the account books and sale deed than the actual consideration. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view for the following reasons: (a) The appellant has shown the cost of construction material and labour expenses for the construction in his balance sheet and the return filed at Rs.97,76,773/- hence, the difference remains only of Rs. 17,76,411/- between the value shown by the appellant and the valuation report of DVO. (b) The DVO has not considered self supervision factor. As per decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO v. Prakash Chand Surana (1979) 7 TTJ 29 (JP), when the house is constructed under owner s supervision, a deduction of about 10% for supervision is given while estimating the cost of construction . After giving the deduction for self supervision at 10%, being Rs.11,55,000/-, the difference remains only Rs.6,21,411/-. (c) After considering the fact that the DVO has valued the property after a lapse of time and also the fact that the appellant has made further expenditure on construction after 31.03.2007, the difference becomes negligible and liable to be ignored. (d) During the search, no documentary evidence was found that the appellant has incurred unaccounted expenditure in construction. (e) In view of these facts and the case laws relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -07 07-08] 7. The C.Os. are against for referring the matter to the D.V.O. u/s 142A of the I.T. Act in both the years. The detail findings have been given in preceding paras. Therefore, no separate findings are given on these C.Os and on same issue revenue s appeals have been dismissed and allowed in favour of the assessee. Now we take up assessee s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 95/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 07-08 8. The main ground of appeal is as under:- 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154 and charging interest u/s 234B and 234C by treating amount of Rs. 23 lacs which has been adjusted against the cash seized as self assessment tax instead of advance tax. 9. The first ground of appeal of A.Y. 2007-08 was again charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT Act. The brief fact of the case is that there was search and seizure operation on the group on 08.02.2007. The ld. A.O. had given the appeal effect on 13.11.2009 in which he charged interest u/s 234B and 234C. The assessee filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has rightly rejected the rectification application u/s.154 against which the appeal under consideration is filed. It appears that the appellant has not raised any ground of appeal against charging of interest u/s. 2234B 234C in the order passed u/s.143(3) on 30.12.2008 and now through the rectification application, the appellant wants to raise the ground of appeal against the charging of interest u/s.234B 234C in the original assessment order by quoting wrong facts in the rectification application and submissions filed during the appellate proceedings that the interest u/s.234B 234C was charged first time in the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). In view of the above observation, the appeal filed against the rejection of rectification application vide order dated 18.02.2011 u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act, is dismissed. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal before us and argued that this was no fault of the assessee in adjusting the cash against the advance tax even after written request had been made by the assessee. He relied upon C Bench, Ahmedabad decision in case of Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Surat in ITA No. 359/Ahd/2012. Co-ordinate C Bench had consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
