Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (11) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before him during the appellate proceedings ignoring the facts: (i) that the circumstances explained by the assessee do not fall under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 46A(1) of IT Rules, 1961. (ii) that sufficient opportunities were allowed to the assessee to furnish the relevant documents and produce the books of account during the assessment proceedings, which the assessee failed to furnish/produce. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,77,500/- on account of valuation of building under construction by simply relying on the report of valuer dated 22.9.2009 without giving an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en over by the assessee w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and at that point of time the opening value of the building was Rs. 7,57,823/- and during three months time from (1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007) only a sum of Rs. 50.061/- was spend on the construction of building. No such verification was made by the Assessing Officer and simply valued the building at Rs. 30 lacs. The Assessing Officer should have given his reasons for arriving at a particular figure of income so that the assessee could be enabled to appreciate the mental process leading to the assessment and the figures assessed. The order needs, to be a speaking order. The Assessing Officer took no pains in computing the income on the basis of the material available on record. In the case of A.C.I.T V. Sm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ued at Rs. 8,22,500/-. (copy of the valuation attached) It is requested that value of the same be taken at Rs. 8,07,884/- instead of the huge valued taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 30 lacs. We request your honor to kindly admit there documents as additional evidence under the power conferred in your good self under rule 46A of the IT Act and delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer on this account." 4 .During appellate proceedings valuation report dated 22.9.2009 was also furnished and it was pointed out that report from competent valuer was obtained before the assessment but could not be filed during assessment proceedings because of the difficult law and order situation in the city. The ld. CIT(A) accepted this additio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t proceedings and did not even submit the books of account but some details were submitted. He further found that clause (b) of Rule 46A clearly makes an exception by providing that if the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause for not producing which was called upon by the Assessing Officer then Rule 46A would not be attracted. Before the ld. CIT(A) it was clearly stated that valuation report could not be filed because of disturbances in the City and in our opinion, this is a sufficient cause for not filing the report. In any case, the ld. CIT(A) had forwarded this report to the Assessing Officer for his comments. In case of Sargam Cinema V. CIT (supra) it is clearly observed that the matter could not be referred to DVO without poi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficer. In fact the Assessing Officer has test checked the same vide order sheet entry No. 4 on 25.11.2009. Further reliance was placed on certain case laws. 10. The ld. CIT(A) after discussion restricted the disallowance to 25%. 11. Before us, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that since the assessee had not produced anything before the Assessing Officer therefore, disallowance was justified. 12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has already restricted the disallowance to 25% which is more than reasonable. 13. After hearing both the parties we agree with the submissions of the ld. counsel of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has already confirmed the disallowance to 25% of the expenses fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates