TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y team who visited assessee’s premises in the month of Feb, 2008 have accepted the investment in home at 15,00,000/- and the same was also accepted by assessee and disclosed in return of income. Thus, the valuation by DVO for F.Y. 2007-08 was excessive with regard to the assessee’s claim that the State PWD rate should have been adopted in place of CPWD rate or appropriate deduction should have been given out of CPWD rates as held in various cases by ITAT. ITAT in various cases have allowed reduction up to 20% from the CPWD rates. As also find merit in the plea of AR that 10% deduction should be allowed for self supervision. It is a justified claim. Thus the valuation done by the DVO by adopting the CPWD rate instead of State PWD rates and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale bills, other vouchers and loose papers etc. for the financial year 2003-04onwards were found and these were impounded. The assessee was neither maintaining books of account nor the books were found during the survey. The stock was inventorised and it was valued at ₹ 12,78,794/- by the survey party. The survey authorities also found that assessee commenced construction of house 5-6 months prior to the date of survey and estimated investment therein at ₹ 15.00 lacs and it was inferred by the survey party that investment in the stock found and in the construction of the house was out of the income earned during the year 2003-04 to 2007-08. During the survey the assessee admitted an income of ₹ 3.00 lacs for assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring assessment year 2009-10 and remaining construction work was completed during the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14. It is claimed that this fact was evident from the books of account maintained by the assessee wherein the investment in the construction has been shown in the relevant financial years. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the D.V.O. by invoking the provisions of Section 142A of the Act for valuation on 06/2/2014. The Valuation Officer inspected the property on 06/3/2014 and valued it at ₹ 35.64 lacs. The valuation officer took the ratio of expenses declared by the assessee in the financial year 2007-08 and 2010-11 only and determined the cost of construction of the house in the financial year 2007-08 at ₹ 30,69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. The assessee got its house valued by a registered valuer in the construction done in F.Y. 2007-08 and further during the year 2010-11 and the registered valuer valued the construction of the house as under:- F.Y. 2007-08 ₹ 15,07,744/- F.Y. thereafter till 2010 ₹ 2,82,655/- On the notice received from the valuation officer of the IT department, the assessee informed the valuation officer about commencement of the construction were in the year 2007 and it was partly completed in the year 2010. However, till then, the house was not complete. The valuation officer inspected the property in the month of Feb, 2014 and the valuation officer took the period of construction for F.Y. 2007-08 and completion in the F.Y. 2010-11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... location of total cost valued by A.V.O. in the ratio of construction in F.Y. 2007-08 at 86.137% and in A.Y. 2010-11 @ 13.877% is not justified due to construction period was beyond that also and the cost of construction must have be allocated for the F.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the ratio cost of construction declared by the assessee. It was also prayed that cost of construction for F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 may kindly be allowed to be determined according to the subject to reasonable deduction therefrom after consideration of objections raised by the assessee before the AVO with regard to the difference in the CPWD rates in comparison to the State PWD rates and deduction for sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|