9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts which were duly examined by the A.O. with due application of mind and the same were never rejected - The reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of account is not desirable – However, the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamla Ganpati vs. Cntroller of Estate Duty, [2001 (2) TMI 132 - SUPREME Court] – Decided against the Revenue. - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law in deleting the addition of differential cost of construction of ₹ 30.08 by holding that any addition made after utilizing the report of the Valuation Officer without the Assessing Officer first rejecting the books of account was not sustainable. (In ITA No.181 of 2008) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report of the two valuers comes to ₹ 77,77,581/- and ₹ 30,08,529/- respectively in the assessment year under consideration. So, the A.O. made the addition in each assessment year, but the said additions were deleted by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. Still not being satisfied, the Department has filed the instant appeals. With this background, Sri D.D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that the assessee society is the beneficiary of Sections 11 and 12 A of the Income Tax Act. In the instant case, on the basis of the approved valuer, the assessee has declared the investment of the building, but the A.O. was not satisfied. So, he has referred the matter to the DVO who again estimated the cost and made the additions. Needless to mention that estimation is a question of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
