9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had not been rejected in the present case and following the said principle, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in this regard and we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1124/PN/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM For The Appellant by : Shri R.G. Nahar For The Respondent : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, dated 15.12.2011 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer (in short DVO ) for determining the cost of construction and fixtures of the said property. The DVO valued the investment in the property at ₹ 3,26,10,000/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter, issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the excess investment of ₹ 12,25,142/- should not be added in the hands of the assessee. In response, the assessee contended that the difference in value done by the DVO and as accounted for in the books of account was 4%, which would be due to calculation and purchasing difference of the material. The Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee, added sum of ₹ 12,25,142/- as unexplained investment under section 69B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of transactions, therefore, the books of account regularly maintained were established to be unreliable. Where the return was not a regular return based on the books maintained in the regular course of business, the same were not required to be first rejected before resorting to the services of the DVO. Reliance placed upon by the assessee in this regard was held to be not applicable to the facts of the case and the addition made by the Assessing Officer, was upheld. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid addition made in his hands. 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the investment in both the residential properties was debited to the books of account maintained by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -08. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee thus, contended even assuming that the addition is to be made in the hands of assessee, then there is no reason why the addition was made in this year i.e. assessment year 2009-10. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee was a partner in M/s. Aswani Associates. Search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 13.08.2008. Subsequent thereto, the assessee furnished regular return of income for the captioned assessment year declaring total income of ₹ 78,10,630/-. The assessee had received remuneration from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment was finalized after going through the appraisal report and analysis of the seized documents. In the body of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not referred to any document being found during the course of search, which relates to the cost of construction or unexplained investment in the aforesaid properties. Where no document has been found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search indicating any suppressed cost of construction and fixtures of the said properties, and where the assessee had recorded the expenses incurred on construction in the books of account, no addition is warranted in the hands of assessee solely on the basis of DVO report. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
