9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Ashish Bansal, S. D. Singh ORDER Both the appeals have been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the consolidated judgment and order dated 07.10.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in I.T.A. Nos. 329 330/LUC/2000, for the block period ending 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 bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the DVO report is valid and justifiable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases :- (i) Sunder Carpet Industries vs. ITO, 324 ITR 417 (Alld); and (ii) Unit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT, 260 ITR 189. It is also a submission of the learned counsel that the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Lucknow 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the order passed by the CIT(A). So, the addition is below the prescribed limit as per Board's Circular dated 24.10.2005 as well as under Section 268-A of the Income Tax Act. It is his alternative submission. Lastly, he made a request that the appeals filed by the Department may kindly be dismissed. After hearing both 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
