9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on 14.05.1998. On 09.07.2009 and 11.01.2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted both the appeals on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,65,566/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment in property No.7/93-A, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur on the basis of report of the Departmental Valuer, ignoring the latest legal position as a result of insertion of Section 142-A by Finance Act (No.2), 2004 with retrospective effect from 15th November, 1972, which has the effect of nullifying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now Public Education Society, Income Tax Appeal No. 136 of 2007 is not applicable. If any doubt, the matter can be referred to a Larger Bench. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee justified the impugned order. He submits that the AO has made the addition of Rs.8,65,566/- in the hands of each assessee, is pertaining to the property in question. Learned counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat, 247 ITR 448 (SC), where it was observed that :- "The said question refers to addition of Rs.2,49,350 made on account of unexplained expenses in construction of residential bungalow by the assessee. Here also, Chapter XIV-B has no application. The Tribunal rightly, found that the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the instant case, the valuation made by the DVO is based on the estimation and the estimation is a question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the following cases :- (i) CIT vs. Sanghi Bros; 301 ITR 129 (MP); (ii) CIT vs. Adam Khan; 223 ITR 264 (Mad); (iii) Hari Gopal Singh vs. CIT; 258 ITR 85(P & H); (iv) CIT vs. Ravail Singh; 254 ITR 1991(P & H); (v) Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT; 251 ITR 373 (Raj.);and (vi) CIT vs. Raj Bhan Singh; 276 ITR 351 (All). Further, in the instant case, before referring the matter to the DVO, the AO has not rejected the books of account. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT; (2010) 328 ITR 513, observed that :- "In the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
