9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer. Therefore, solely on the basis of the DVO's report which, as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, can be said to be the opinion of the DVO only, no addition can be made with respect to difference between the cost of construction determined by the DVO and shown by the assessee. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of the cost of construction which was solely based upon the DVO's report. No interference of this Court is called for and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed as no question of law, much l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002-2003), under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act (for A.Y.2003-2004) and under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act (for A.Y.2004-2005). That the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the I.T. Act for the assessment years under consideration solely relying upon and/or based on the valuation report obtained by the Department from the District Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, obtained in case of one M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. from whom, the assessee got the project transferred. That the Assessing Officer passed the respective reassessment orders and reassessed the cost of construction and directed to make addition on account of the difference in the cost of construction as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. That the Revenue also preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal being ITA No.2253/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2003-2004 challenging the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. That by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee and has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and also dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue which was filed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by AO and deleting penalty amounting to ₹ 15,35,245/- levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of the I T Act? 2.7. In Tax Appeal No.176 of 2015, the Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in cancelling the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act issued by AO following the provisions available as per explanation 2(b) given below section 147 of the Income Tax Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,21,684/- for assessment year 2004-05 as unexp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings. 3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that even in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Dhariya Construction Co. reported in 328 ITR 515 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the DVO's report can be considered, however, subject to Assessing Officer applying his mind. It is submitted that, therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the reassessment proceedings not valid and in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in the cost of construction which was based upon the DVO's report. 3.5. Making the above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is called for and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed as no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. Once the addition made by Assessing Officer is deleted, the necessary consequences would be to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. Under the circumstances, the appeals against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeals preferred by the Revenue and confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act also deserve to be dismissed. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals fail and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
