9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 27.3.2000, was subjected to reopening under Section 147 of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 6.3.2002. In such re-assessment, cost of construction of a Kalyana Mandapam at Kumbakonam, was adopted by the Assessing Officer based on value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The difference between cost admitted by the assessee and the value determined by the DVO, was added to the income of the assessee. Assessee went in successive appeals and this Tribunal, vide its order in I.T.A. No. 500/Mds/2003 dated 6.1.2006, remitted the issue back to the file of the A.O. for deciding it afresh. Accordingly, the matter was taken up once again by the Assessing Officer. Argument of the assessee was that in view of the direction of the Tribunal, only State PWD rates could be considered for the valuation of Kalyana Mandapam and not the CPWD rates. However, the A.O. was not impressed. He persisted with CPWD rates for valuing the Kalyana Mandapam and held as under:- "The plinth area rates prepared by the Tamil Nadu State PWD and also by Government of India are available. It is preferred to use the Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional High Court in the case of A. Abdul Rahim v. ITO (258 ITR 714) and that of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. Selvaraj v. ITO [258 ITR (AT) 82]. He, therefore, directed the A.O. to re-work the cost of construction by giving 15% reduction on the value determined by the Valuation Officer using CPWD rates and further directed to allow 10% rebate for selfsupervision and 5% deduction for use of old materials. 6. Now before us, learned A.R., strongly assailing the orders of authorities below, submitted that by reducing 15% from the value fixed as per CPWD rates, value as per State PWD rates cannot be raised. According to him, none of the authorities below followed the direction of the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned D.R. supporting the order of CIT(Appeals), submitted that 15% reduction of cost from CPWD rates will automatically bring the value at par with State PWD rates. 8. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. The question is regarding valuation of Kalyana Mandapam. The matter had initially reached this Tribunal where it was held as under:- "We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had claimed a depreciation of Rs. 4,34,332/- on a new car purchased. Assessee has purchased a Cheverolet Optra car during the relevant previous year. A.O. stated that the said vehicle was classified under Non-Transport category and there was no claim for expenses towards fuel. Assessee had also returned income under "hire charges" for the impugned as well as preceding assessment year. As per the A.O., the Kalyana Mandapam business was carried on in Kumbakonam, whereas, the car was registered in Chennai. Assessee had no business activity in Chennai. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of depreciation on the car considering it to be personal in nature. 13. Before the CIT(Appeals), argument of the assessee was that it had returned hiring charges along with income of Kalyana Mandapam as part of her business receipts. In the earlier years, assessee had only a van, but, during the relevant previous year, assessee had both car and van which were let out to the marriage parties. Just because the car was registered under Non-Transport category, depreciation claimed ought not have been disallowed. However, CIT(Appeals) was not appreciative. According to him, assessee could not establish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, according to him, the same exemption cannot be claimed for another building also. He, therefore, considered the rentals returned by the assessee in the earlier years and concluded that same amount could be considered for impugned assessment year also. Accordingly, a house property income of Rs. 2,43,600/- was added. 20. In its appeal before CIT(Appeals), argument of the assessee was that "Luz" was let out with good rentals upto financial year 2001-02. However, the tenant M/s Alden Press did not renew its lease thereafter. During 2005-06, a portion of the roof was collapsed. During the relevant previous year, the building as a whole was pulled down. Thus, it was a vacant land. Further, assessee was living in the property adjacent to "Luz" and when 'Luz" was razed to ground, it became a part of the selfoccupied property of the assessee since the demarcation wall was brought down. Therefore, as per the assessee, no income could be considered from "Luz" for the impugned assessment year. However, CIT(Appeals) was not appreciative. According to him, assessee could not clearly show that the property was used by her for her own residence. According to him, the property, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
