9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s appeal having been allowed and that of the Revenue's having been rejected, the Revenue has preferred these two separate appeals. 2. The sole question raised by the Revenue for our consideration is as under : "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,77,724/made u/s 69B being unexplained investment in house property ?" 3. From the record it emerges that the Assessing Officer after making a reference to DVO for ascertaining assessee's investment in house property on the basis of such return added a sum of Rs.10,77,724/under section 69B of the Act being assessee's unexplained investment. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT (Appeals) on facts analysed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer. An another case law relied upon was Sargam Cinema, 197 Taxman 203 [328 ITR 513 (SC)]. Our attention has again been drawn on few case laws which was referred before learned CIT(A), viz. Bajranglal Bansal, 241 ITR 64 (Del.), Ushakant N. Patel Vs. CIT 282 ITR 553 (Guj). In the light of these case laws and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) has not considered the fundamental questions as pointed out by the assessee that there was no material, what to say an incriminating material, in the possession of the Revenue Department, therefore, the entire addition being merely based upon the estimation of DVO wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer had any doubt regarding the cost of construction or that he was not satisfied regarding the correctness or completeness of the books of account. Before making the reference to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the fair price of construction, the Assessing Officer does not appear to have ascertained the correctness or otherwise of the cost of construction shown by the assessee in its books of account. Thus, prior to making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer has not ascertained as to what was the defect in the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in its returns of income. Moreover, it is apparent that the only reason for making the addition under section 69 of the Act is that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are informed that the decision of this Court in the case of Goodluck Automobiles (supra) was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nirpal Singh v. Commissioner of Incometax, reported in 359 ITR 398. We may notice that Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Lucknow Public Educational Society, reported in (2011) 339 ITR 588, had also taken a similar view. 7. We are not oblivious of the fact that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Simandhar Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 643, had taken a contrary view. However, following the decision of this Court in the case of Goodluck Automobiles (supra), we do not interfere in the findings arrived at by both the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
