9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he building has started during the period from 2006-07 which continued till 2010-11 and thereafter. Therefore, adoption of 1992 schedule of rates and multiplying the same by cost inflation index as against the available rate of 2007 or 2009 will give a distorted figure. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a chart showing that because of these faulty method adopted by the DVO, the difference comes to ₹ 1,82,41,436/-. However, since the assessee has not maintained any books of account on day-to-day basis towards the investment in the bungalow, therefore, the property has to be valued by following the method of valuation/guidelines issued by various agencies. It is also a fact that the CPWD rates are higher than the local PWD rates. Further, we find some force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that instead of adopting 1992 rates and multiplying the same by cost inflation index the DVO could have adopted the current schedule of rates prescribed by CPWD and brought it down or made suitable adjustments. Since the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) has also made a statement that the investment in the bungalow is about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidence in support of this claim has been given, he rejected the claim of the assessee that no disallowance u/s.40A(3) can be made. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount involved in question has been invested in the construction of the farm house which is a capital expenditure and therefore provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable. We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In the preceding paragraphs, we have already held that the additional income disclosed by the assessee is available to him for investment in farm house/bungalow. Thus, the expenditure is capital in nature. It has been held in various judicial decisions that provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable to capital expenditure. Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s.40A(3) of the I.T. Act. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11 on this issue are allowed. Rejection of relief on account of excess disclosure in gold - Held that:- A perusal of the Panchanama shows that the list/invent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ietary concern M/s. Sneha Construction. He had filed his return of income for different assessment years, the details of which are as under : Asst. Year Date of filing of return Income declared Agricultural income 2006-07 31-10-2006 1,35,78,686/- 79,020/- 2007-08 31-10-2007 78,37,860/- 2008-09 29-09-2008 46,84,427/- 2009-10 28-09-2009 51,57,660/- 2010-11 06-10-2010 1,22,67,446/- 2011-12 30-09-2011 8,68,48,281/- 4. A search u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 12-10-2010. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act the assessee filed the return of income for different assessment years disclosing total income as under: Asst. Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of construction, the details of which are as under : F.Y. Rs. 2005-06 1,70,26,504/- 2006-07 54,91,686/- 2007-08 6,43,49,709/- 2008-09 1,45,91,834/- 2009-10 1,92,19,267/- Total 12,06,79,000/- 7. In the valuation report, the DVO has stated that the following are not included in the estimate : (a) the movable items like furniture fittings, chairs, tables, cots, light fittings, wall handing paintings etc. (b) The cost of land. (c) The small structure in memory of the assessee s parents, said to be built prior to start of work. However, as per the DVO, this report includes the followings The cost of all normal services like Water supply, Sanitary, development works including the retaining walls, guard walls, WBM road, Gate, lawn, water tank, septic tank, mandir, swimming pool, porch, fountains, fixed wardrobes, false ceiling works, internal finishing works, lift, chandelier, generator s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed a special attention, as these are also coming under specialized items and valued by DVO at higher side. 5. No deduction/allowance on account of which brought savings in the cost of construction to the assessee by using experience of the assessee himself and his family members and free of cost use of shuttering and construction equipments available with them as they all are engaged in construction and development business activities. Further, the allowance given for supervision work is very less, i.e. only 3%, in normal case it should be at least 15% to 20%. We further demand to reduce the costing on account of architecture fees as assessee is engaged in the construction and development business. 6. The valuation report contains certain additions after the date of search, the same need to be excluded from the valuation. 10. However, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He observed that the assessee has not given any basis with supporting documents while raising the objection that the rate considered for cost of construction (RCC) is on the higher side. The assessee has also not given any alternate rate or alternate method for determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de addition of ₹ 1,70,26,504/- to the total income of the assessee on account of the difference between the estimated cost of construction as per the DVO s report and the cost shown by the assessee for construction. 12. Similar additions have been made by the AO for different assessment years on account of unexplained investment in the bungalow the details of which are as under : A.Y. Investment as per DVO Investment as per assessee Difference 2006-07 1,70,26,504 -- 1,70,26,504 2007-08 54,91,686 14,56,159 40,35,527 2008-09 6,43,49,709 1,70,66,533 4,72,83,176 2009-10 1,45,91,834 38,73,523 1,07,18,311 2010-11 1,92,19,267 50,96,500 1,41,22,767 13. Before CIT(A) it was submitted that the report prepared by the approved valuer Shri Ravindra Bapat, which was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PWD indices of 2007 or 2009 which had become available. It was submitted that the construction was started only in the middle of 2007. Had the DVO used CPWD indices of 2007 then the mathematical error caused because of usage of 1992 indices could have been avoided and the bungalow would have been valued at much lower figure. It was submitted that the assessee being a Builder, Promoter and Developer was able to take advantage of his technical knowledge, knowledge of availability of cheap labour, quality of material, discount on bulk purchases etc. to achieve considerable economy in construction cost. However, the DVO did not take into account all these factors and had allowed 3% as self supervision charges. It was argued that the prices and rates utilized by the DVO are very exorbitant and he has taken the highest market value. It was argued that considering the business of the assessee as Promoter and Developer, and considering his domain knowledge, expertise, contacts etc. self supervision charges should have been granted between 15% to 20%. 16. It was further argued that the DVO had inappropriately used closing balances of construction work in the books of the assessee as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re as under: A.Y. Amount added by AO Less: Relief allowed @3% of Cost (See Para 12.35) Less: Relief allowed on account of Expenditure after 31-03- 2010 (see Para 12.31) Less : Set off for income disclosed in 153A return (see para 12.46) Addition sustained 2005-06 Nil Nil Nil Nil Not Applicable 2006-07 1,70,26,504/- 6,81,900/- 11,02,403/- 22,12,000/- 1,30,31,201/- 2007-08 40,35,527/- 1,61,611/- 2,61,270/- 8,79,000/- 27,33,646/- 2008-09 4,72,83,176/- 18,94,166/- 30,62,230/- 42,70,000/- 3,80,56,780/- 2009-10 1,07,18,311/- 4,29,220/- 6,93,904/- 27,04,667/- 68,90,520/- 2010-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,30,30,201/- for the A.Y. 2006- 07. He submitted that the additional income declared for A.Y.2006-07 is sufficient enough to meet the construction of the approach road to reach the hill top and the levelling work etc. which has been carried out towards the fag end of F.Y.2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, no addition is called for during A.Y.2006-07. 22. So far as the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of valuation report given by the DVO is concerned, he submitted that there are serious lapses in the said report of the DVO. He submitted that despite the availability of guidelines for valuation of immovable properties in 2009 CPWD rates, the DVO has adopted CPWD indices of 1992. Referring to the comparative table of rates used by the DVO and the rates as per 2009 guidelines, he submitted that if the 2009 rate is adopted, then there is a difference of ₹ 1,29,31,475.85. He submitted that although the same was brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A), however he rejected the same on the ground that the same is yet to be approved by the CBDT. He submitted that non approval of the CBDT 2007 specifications or 2009 specification cannot be a ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT reported in 328 ITR 513 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society reported in 339 ITR 588 (All) 3. Smt. Tarawati Debi Agarwal Vs. ITO reported in 162 ITR 606 (Cal) 4. CIT Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi reported in 328 ITR 604 (Del) 5. K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO Another reported in 131 ITR 597 6. Shanti Complex Vs. ITO reported in 63 ITD 181 (Pat) 7. Dr. G. Premalatha Vs. DCIT ITA No.200/Hyd/2014 8. Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. DCIT ITA No.1619/Del/2008 9. CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 303 ITR 256 26. Referring to page 158 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 and submitted that the assessee has suo-moto disclosed an amount of ₹ 7,20,95,852/- as voluntary disclosure. He submitted that since the construction activity was going on, therefore, it is quite possible that certain expenses remained payable and the assessee can be considered to have paid a part of such expenditure in the subsequent years. The amount disclosed as voluntary disclosure in A.Y.2011-12 also proves that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 213 200 Particulars As per DVO Revised Value Net Effect Basic Rate Adopted 141.65 141.65 -- Area 22,500.00 1,792.00 20,708.00 Value 3,187,125.00 253,836.80 2,933,288.20 Add for indexation @(336/100) 10,708,740.00 852,891.65 9,855,848.35 Add for interior location @5% 535,437.00 42,644.58 492,792.42 Total Valuation 11,244,177.00 895,536.23 10,348,640.77 Sr.No. Particulars Observations Paper book page reference 3 Item No.54 RCC Water Tank with capacity of 17,000 litres @ ₹ 10 per lt. 223 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the assessee in the instant case is a Promoter, Builder and Developer. A search u/s.132 of the I.T Act was conducted in his case on 12-10-2010. During the course of search, it was noticed that the assessee has made substantial investment in farm house/bungalow at Manewadi, Khanapur, Sinhagad Panshet Road, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. At the time of search, the Department hired the services of an approved valuer who valued the bungalow at ₹ 24,82,49,207/- which included the cost of plot at ₹ 9,52,87,500/- and cost of construction at ₹ 15,29,61,707/-. Since the assessee in his balance sheet as on 31-03-2010 has recorded the investment at ₹ 3,20,08,627/- the assessee was confronted. The assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) on 14-10-2010 had disclosed additional income of ₹ 9 crores on account of undisclosed investment in the bungalow. Subsequently, since the assessee did not honour the disclosure in the returns filed for the A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against 2009 rates available. 34. So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO could not have referred the matter to the DVO is concerned, we find the said argument is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The various decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are also distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the AO could not have referred the matter to the DVO is misplaced under the facts and circumstances of the case. 35. However, we find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding the manner and method of valuation and the mistakes committed by the DVO and the Ld.CIT(A). There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee in its balance sheet as on 31-03- 2006, a copy of which is placed at paper book page 8 read with page 12, has shown the cost of land at Khanapur at ₹ 45,15,912/- and no investment on account of construction of the same has been disclosed. We find before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has made the following submission which has been reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A) at para 12.12 of the order: 2.12 During appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of search substantial construction work of the bungalow/farm house was completed. The pending work included fall ceiling work in some room, hand painting work, lift fitting etc. 6. The Income tax Department appointed Mr. Ravindra Bapat a Registered Valuer to estimate the value of the bungalow; who visited the site along with search tea of the Income tax Dept. on 13/10/2010. Subsequently Mr. Ravindra Bapat submitted valuation report certifying the cost of the plot and construction of the farm house / bungalow at Rs,24,82,49,000/- Which was on the basis of many assumptions, limitations etc. The cost was worked out taking into account on the basis of recent transactions for broadly comparable properties in the vicinity and he submitted his report on 18/10/2010 with following note. --- The cost incurred is made at the request of the Income Tax Department. Pune and is prepared solely for use of Income Tax Department. We understand that the report will not be copied or released for external circulation without permission of the author. This report has been prepared as per information provided by the department. We have not verified the same with the original documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period from A. Y. 2006-07 to A. Y. 2010-11 9. Subsequent to Mr. Bapat s report and after the closure of search proceeding the appellate was disturbed and puzzled how could he use such huge amount for construction of the farm house/bungalow; as he does not have any other source of income. Hence, he decided to obtain true picture of the cost of the bungalow and he appointed M/s. S.R. Nimbal Associates Registered Valuer to carry out the valuation of the said bungalow. 10. M/s. S.R. Nimbal Associates prepared the report on item to item cost basis and by measuring work by usage of counts, measuring tapes weights etc. His report has provided detailed calculations of cement bags, area measurements for painting etc. and also adding 7% contingencies and worked out 7.10 crore as the cost of the bungalow including land. The said report was submitted to learned AO but learned AO and DVO did not accept the same. Further, the learned AO has totally ignored the Registered Valuer report and not even single word was mentioned about this report in the assessment orders. 11. An arbitrary rejection of Register Valuer M/s S. R. Nimbal Associates report by the learned AO is because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the details etc. obtained through the assessee/valuer provided as stated by the valuer were not forwarded to this office in spite of repeated requests to the AO (ACIT/DCIT/JCIT). The valuation report submitted by the assessee was also not forwarded to this office .. This indicates that learned AO desperately and with malafide intention suppressed Registered Valuer M/s. S.R. Nimbal Associates valuation report. It is clear that the learned AO was polluting the mind of DVO s to get valuation report not to the true fact by providing exorbitantly valued valuation report of Mr. Bapat which report he himself is not believing to be correct because of the methodology adopted by Mr. Bapat and report usage condition stated in the valuation report. As stated herein above and with the cost of repetition the appellate states that Mr. Ravindra Bapat prepared the report in hurry still the learned AO was forwarding the same report and not other report submitted by the appellant. 13. The learned DVO had started work of valuation by visiting the site on 23/01/2013 and submitted report on 28/02/2013. In between he had called the appellant to produce details about title documents of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t value as if the learned DVO was carrying out valuation for capital gains and he has forgotten that the reference is u/s.142A with mandate to estimate cost of construction for the purpose to calculate undisclosed income which is always required to be calculated with relation to the cash flow of the person as well as available bills and surrounding area market rates of the construction materials. Further the appellant respectfully states that the appellant being a builder, Developers and contractor and having done construction work on large scale in the surrounding area he has taken the advantages of bulk purchase of construction materials and low cost of labour. Therefore the bungalow cost is much lesser to the appellant than had this bungalow been constructed by any other person than the appellant. 18. Further learned DVO has inappropriately used closing balance of construction work in the books of appellant as base for actual work in progress. In fact when learned AO has rejected books of accounts if at all than such type of usage cant be take and it cannot be considered actual work in progress to spread the cost of construction among the various financial years. 19. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant to confront DVO s report and to establish correctness of the valuation report submitted by the appellant. 22. Further the appellant respectfully states that before accepting DVOs valuation report as a base for addition to the returned income of the appellant he should have been found out approximate cash inflow to cross check investments calculated by the DVO and then and then only addition should have been effected. The appellant bring to the your Honors kind notice that all the sources of the income have been surfaced through search by the search team u/s.132. In such circumstance there cannot be presumed that additional sources are left out from the search. Hence, it is necessary to work out cash flow statement on the basis of search data to find out available money to invest in a construction of the bungalow. 36. However, we find despite the above submission before the Ld.CIT(A) he has not deliberated upon on this issue and has gone by the report of the DVO which has been accepted by the AO. Since the submission of the assessee has not been rebutted at any place, therefore, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 1.89 crores was incurred on the farm house/bungalow after 31-03-2010 till the date of search he has rejected the same on the ground that the assessee was unable to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his claim that an amount of ₹ 1.89 crores was incurred on the farm house/bungalow. 39. As mentioned earlier, from the details furnished by the assessee in the balance sheet, the assessee has made investment of ₹ 3,90,59,712/- between 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011 as per the balance sheet filed. However, the same cannot be fully allowed under the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, benefit of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- on estimate on account of expenditure after 31-03-2010 as against ₹ 60,33,950/- allowed by the CIT(A) in our opinion will meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct accordingly. 40. Now coming to the amount of self supervision charges, we find the DVO has granted only 3% of the value of the property as self supervision charges which has been enhanced to 6% by the CIT(A). The assessee in the instant case is admittedly engaged in the business of Promoters, Builders and Developers. He i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason as to why the entire undisclosed income should not be allowed as being available to the assessee to meet the cost of investment towards the farm house/bungalow. There is no material at the disposal of the revenue that the additional income disclosed has been utilised otherwise. Under these circumstances and considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the fact that the assessee has declared additional income of ₹ 3,43,24,198/- during the period from A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 in his returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A the same in our opinion should be available to the assessee for investing in the bungalow. We, therefore, direct the AO to give set off of ₹ 3,43,24,198/- as against ₹ 1,81,21,667/- allowed by the Ld.CIT(A). 43. So far as the contention of the assessee that the DVO has considered the 1992 rates as against 2007 and 2009 rates which were available in public domain is concerned, we also find some force in the above. Admittedly, the construction of the building has started during the period from 2006-07 which continued till 2010-11 and thereafter. Therefore, adoption of 1992 schedule of rates and multiplying the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so cannot be rejected because of certain obvious calculation mistakes and adoption of 1992 schedule of rates. Considering the totality of the facts of the case a further reduction of 20% from the value adopted by the DVO may be allowed to meet the ends of justice. This comes to ₹ 2,41,35,800/- as against ₹ 2,59,32,523/- calculated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. This in our opinion will meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct accordingly. 44. In the light of our above observations, we find the investment in the property can be determined as under : Amount determined by the DVO 12,06,79,000 Less : investment shown by the assessee upto 31-03-2010 (excluding the cost of land 2,74,92,715 9,31,86,285 Less: set off of additional income as per para 42 of this order 3,43,24,198 5,88,62,087 Relief on account of expenditure after 31-03-2010 as per para 39 2,00,00,000 3,88,62,087 L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the I.T. Act disallowed 20% of such expenditure being ₹ 1,11,000/- for A.Y. 2006-07, ₹ 4 lakhs for A.Y. 2008-09 and ₹ 7,40,483/- for A.Y. 2010-11. The AO further noted that on 19-03- 2013 the assessee has filed a letter dated 18-03-2013 in Tappal contending that undisclosed income disclosed by him for the A.Yrs. 2005-06 to 2009-10 of ₹ 2,06,99,420/- has been invested by him in the Khanapur bungalow. He observed that the stand has been taken by the assessee for the first time at the fag end of assessment proceedings. No credible evidence in support of his claim has been given. He further observed that during the course of search no evidence was found to indicate that the cash generated has been invested in the bungalow. The assessee has purchased over 250 acres of land in Srivardhan and has also acquired several other immovable properties. Therefore, the possibility of the assessee using the cash collected for purchase of these immovable properties cannot be ruled out. In absence of any credible evidence the AO rejected the version of the assessee and accordingly made addition u/s.40A(3) as mentioned above. 49. Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the stand has been taken by the assessee for the first time at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and since no credible evidence in support of this claim has been given, he rejected the claim of the assessee that no disallowance u/s.40A(3) can be made. 55. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount involved in question has been invested in the construction of the farm house which is a capital expenditure and therefore provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable. We find merit in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In the preceding paragraphs, we have already held that the additional income disclosed by the assessee is available to him for investment in farm house/bungalow. Thus, the expenditure is capital in nature. It has been held in various judicial decisions that provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable to capital expenditure. Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s.40A(3) of the I.T. Act. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11 on this issue are allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gms gold ornaments and jewellery should be treated as received during the marriage time as per the guidelines issued by CBDT. Similarly, 100 gms of gold jewellery per member of the family should be treated as having been received during the time of marriage and cannot be labeled as undisclosed income or unexplained investments. The family chart of the assessee was given which is as under : Sr.No. Name Relation Qty of Gold in Gms A Samina Nandu Rajput Wife 500 B Riya Arjun Rajput Daughter in law 500 C Nandu Antaram Rajput Appellant 100 D Arjun Nandu Rajput Son 100 E Nakul Nandu Rajput Son 100 Total 1300 It was argued that before the AO it was submitted that the minimum amount of abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok place on 12/10/2010, the return of income was filed on 30/09/2011, i.e. nearly a year later making the said excess disclosure of jewellery and the same was sought to be withdrawn to the extent of ₹ 37,24,917/- vide letter dated 15/03/2013, nearly one and half years after filing the return and about 2 weeks before the end of the limitation period. Under the circumstances, on the very face of facts, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to any relied on this ground. Besides, the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is also against him. As such, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 60. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 61. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Page 759 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to the list/inventory of jewellery found and submitted that the same includes jewellery/gold ornaments of his daughter Shweta V. Bire valued at ₹ 19,50,000/-. Further, entire jewellery has been added in the hands of the assessee without giving any credit to the female members of the family. He submitted that the CIT(A) was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- have been shown in the name of his daughter Sweta V. Bire. Further, some relief should have been granted to the different family members in the light of the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11- 05-1994. 64. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the Panchanama, copy of which is placed at page 759 of the paper book, shows that the list/inventory of jewellery shows jewellery/gold ornaments valued at ₹ 19,50,000/- in the name of Sweta V. Bire, daughter of the assessee. Further in our opinion some relief should have been granted to the assessee on account of jewellery belonging to different family members in the light of the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11-05-1994. Merely because the assessee has made the claim towards the fag end of the assessment proceedings, the same cannot be a ground to reject the plea of the assessee for giving appropriate relief. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT reported in 310 ITR 310 has held that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
