9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Sidhu, J.M. And Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M.,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. K. Misra, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Shameer Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member Both these appeals are filed by the assessee directed against an identical order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) dated 26.11.2009 for the asstt. Year 2000-01 and asstt. Year 2003-04. The assessee filed the following abridged grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 212/Del/2010 Asstt. Year 2000-01 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 91,987/- on account of loans and gifts ignoring the fact that these receipts have already been surrendered as they are appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee. 3(a) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing partial relief to the extent of 15% and sustaining the remaining addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of estimated cost of construction based on department Valuer s Report wherein CPWD rates had been considered instead of PWD rates in spite of specific contention of the appellant that the CPWD rates were not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 2000-01. The departmental valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction as follows :- A.Y. Cost of construction determined by the DVO Cost of the construction disclosed by the assesse Difference 2000-01 ₹ 367291/- ₹ 174200/- ₹ 193091/- 2001-02 ₹ 1096633/- ₹ 520115/- ₹ 576518/- 2002-03 ₹ 126682/- ₹ 60083/- ₹ 66599/- 2003-04 ₹ 2482594/- ₹ 1177454/- ₹ 1305140/- Total ₹ 4073200/- ₹ 1931852/- ₹ 2141348/- 3. The AO proposed to tax the difference of the cost of construction determined by the D.V.O. and cost of construction disclosed by the assessee as an unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee disputed the same by making various submissions and made an addition as per the report of the DVO. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. Before the first appellate authority the assessee contended that he was not given proper opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant will get relief of (Rs. 13,05,140/- - ₹ 8,03,319/-) i.e. ₹ 5,01,821/- on this account. For the assessment year 2000-01 the first appellate authority sustained an addition of ₹ 91,897/- on account of loan and gift allegedly received by the assesee. The assessee is also aggrieved the same. 5. We have heard Shri P.K. Misra the Ld. Counsel for the assesse and Shri Shameer Sharma, Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue. For the asstt. year 2000-01 there are factually two grounds. The first is against the sustainance of an addition of ₹ 91,897/- on account of loans and gifts. Before us the assessee has filed details of gifts received on the occasion of ring ceremony of son on 2.10.99. The total gifts amount to ₹ 70,412/-. The addition has been made on the ground that these gifts have not been substantiated. As these are customary gifts and are a small amounts, we have no reason to disbelief the claim of the assessee. Thus we accept the contention of the assessee and direct the deletion of addition of ₹ 70,412/- from ₹ 91,897/- . The difference of ₹ 21485/- is sustained on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were available and copy of the same was submitted before AO. The Ld. VO worked out the value as per rates and index prescribed in the manual but he did not applied his mind that the parameters provided are on all India basis without taking into account the local conditions. It is very obvious that the cost of construction in a village situated 3 Km, stone from Roorkee is to be bound much less than what it will be in a big metros like Delhi and Mumbai. Hence the cost estimated by Ld. VO is not correct. The assessee fixed valuation report of the Registered Valuer Shri Rakesh Sangal who estimated the cost at 15,80,100.00. The Ld. AO was requested during the course of asstt. Proceedings to cross examine the VO but no opportunity was provided to the assesee. The second valuation report of Shri Rakesh Mohan Gupta Registered Valuer of Saharanpur is also submitted before your goodself who estimated the cost of building at ₹ 17,60,600.00. The assessee could not submit the second valuation report before AO as no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to him. Besides the above facts government works are done by the contractors whether it is CPWD or PWD which includes profit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is situated on road and line is going from there itself and hence the addition of 3% on this account is not justified as the asessee has not paid any connection service charges to the department. This may be got verified before making the addition. G. That Ld. VO has taken 15% for sanitation work. In this connection it is submitted that the building is situated in UA and 6% sanitation charges are applicable under UPAWD rates (copy enclosed). VO has not placed any documentary evidence on record which should proved that the rates are 15% (copy of PWD schedule enclosed) Annexure-5) Since the Hotel Building was completed in Dec. 2002 and no dispute is on this point. The assessee should have been given depreciation on the building of the hotel as per provision of the Act which has not been allowed by Ld. AO. Likewise, the depreciation on furniture and fixture is to be given to the assesee. That the material, labour and transportation cost in big cities is more costlier than the small cities. However, Hon ble CIT(ppeals) DDN in the case of Sachin Hotel allowed 12% deduction in this account whereas in the case of assesee the building is situated in a village 3 Km. stone from Rorkee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. RAILING OF ANGLE FABRIC JALLI 1.00 m. HEIGHT :- He has taken cost at Rs.. 7884.00 @ 438.00 of 18 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the same is calculated in weight and not in sq.m. 6. FLAT BRICK FLOORING:- He has taken cost at ₹ 9936.00 @ 144 sq.m. of 69 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the same is calculated in cu.m. and not in sq.m. 7. COLLASIBLE GATE :- He has taken cost at ₹ 15475.00 @ 1629.00 of 9.50 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the same is calculated in weight and not in sq.m. 8. ALLUMINIUM DOOR WITH GLAZING:- He has taken cost at ₹ 22220.00 @ 2222.00 of 10 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the market rate is not more than 100.00 of per sq.f. 9. GLAZED TILES :- He has taken cost at ₹ 5670.00 @ 378.00 of 15 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the same is calculated in cu.m. and not in sq.m. 10. R.C.C. PROJECTION WITH MOSAIC FLOORING RAILING :- He has taken cost at ₹ 68064.00 @ 1418.00 of 48 sq.m. in this connection it is submitted that the market rate is not more than 710.00 of per cu.m. and not in sq.m. 11. DECORATEIVE (MARAL) TYPE PLASTER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
