9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Kantilal B. Kansara (HUF) [2010 (8) TMI 741 - Gujarat High Court ] - addition u/s 158BD of the Act can be made only in respect of the material disclosed at the time of search or pursuant to any inquiry made in relation to the search - the addition was made by the AO solely based upon the report made by the District Valuation Officer, which was referred during the course of the assessment proceedings - the report of the DVO cannot be stated to be material found during the course of the search and addition made on the basis of the District Valuation Officer’s report was not permissible – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2014 - M. R. Shah And K. J. Thake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/- does not reflect the correct cost with respect to the building known as Ravi Darshan . The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has undervalued the cost of the land and building Ravi Darshan and therefore, the case of the assessee was referred to the valuation committee of the department to work out the fair market cost of the land and building and according to the District Valuation Officer, the cost of the land is ₹ 11,54,000/- instead of ₹ 10,80,830/- declared by the assessee and the cost of the building was ₹ 69,35,627/- instead of ₹ 59,80,252/- declared by the assessee. Therefore, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee has undervalued the cost of the land and building Ravi Darshan to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the corresponding deduction allowable to the assessee for arriving at the profits from the construction business. Consequently, the learned Tribunal deleted the aforesaid addition of ₹ 10,23,545/-. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal directing to delete the aforesaid addition of ₹ 10,23,545/-, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal to consider the question of law. 3. Shri Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in directing to delete the addition of ₹ 10,23,545/-. It is submitted that on the basis of the District Valuation Officer s report which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid submission was made by the assessee before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal is justified in directing to delete the aforesaid addition of ₹ 10,23,545/- , which was on the basis of the District Valuation Officer, which was obtained subsequently. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that the AO directed to make addition of ₹ 10,23,545/- being the difference of value of land and the cost of construction with respect to the building Ravi Darshan on the basis of the report of the Distric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report was not permissible. 5.1 Applying the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kantilal B. Kansara [HUF] (Supra) to the facts of the present case, the addition of ₹ 10,23,545/- made by the AO solely based upon the report of the District Valuation Officer, which was collected during the course of the block assessment proceedings, was not permissible under section 158BC of the Act. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in directing to delete the aforesaid addition of ₹ 10,23,545/-. 6. In view of the above, present tax appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The aforesaid question of law is answered against the Revenue and in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
