2016 (2) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd disclosed by assessee during search. If this be so, the difference between two figures, namely, ₹ 40.28 lacs was justifiably added by the Assessing Officer by way of undisclosed income. Had the said figure of ₹ 191.85 lacs of cost of construction not accounted for the disclosed sum of ₹ 39.20 lacs during search, the counsel for assessee would have been justified in arguing that further addition of ₹ 40.28 lacs by way of estimation of cost of construction would amount to double taxation. That is not the case here. Appellant, however, raised an additional contention that the Assessing Officer could not have referred the cost of construction for his valuation. However, in the present appeal, we are not concerned w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of block assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added the entire sum of ₹ 39.20 lacs by way of income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also was, prima-facie, of the opinion that cost of construction indicated by the assessee in the books of accounts was not correct. He, therefore, referred the matter to the Department Valuation Officer for his opinion. On the basis of such opinion and other materials on record, Assessing Officer concluded that in the cost of construction, there was under valuation of ₹ 40.28 lacs (rounded off). 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and raised the questions of addition of ₹ 39.20 lacs as also the further addition of ₹ 40.28 lacs. The Tribunal confirmed the deci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reflected by the assessee in the books, he, therefore, called for the DVO's report. In the order of assessment, he estimated the cost of construction at ₹ 2.32 crores (rounded off). He compared such fair value of construction that the assessee's book disclosure for the period under consideration which came to ₹ 191.85 lacs (rounded off) inclusive of addition of ₹ 39.20 lacs disclosed by the assessee during the search. This difference, therefore, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer was the assessee's additional income. He, therefore, in addition to said sum of ₹ 39.20 lacs made further addition of ₹ 40.28 lacs. 6. From the perusal of the order of Assessing Officer as well as of the Appellate T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X