9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on presumption of extrapolation even otherwise wholly impermissible on the basis of materials on record. To reiterate, according to the report of the DVO, the entire investment of ₹ 1.82 crores in construction was made before 01.07.2005. There was thereafter, no question of apportioning any portion thereof during the period after 20.09.2005. In any case, the same could not have been done without basis or further opinion available with the Assessing Officer. Only in the present case, we are concerned with the reopening of an assessment which was previously framed after scrutiny and whet her such notice is issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. - Decided in favour of assessee. - SPECIAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation. The DVO's report, however, did not arrive within time. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment without making any addition on the score. Subsequently, notice for reopening of the assessment was issued on the basis that according to DVO total investment in construction during the period between 01.04.2004 to 01.07.2005 was ₹ 1.82 crores. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had shown the cost of construction upto 20.09.2005 only at ₹ 64.11 lacs. On such basis, the assessment was reopened. 3. In case of the present petitioner, the assessment of the return for the year 2006-07 was similarly carried out and completed. To reopen such assessment also the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otel Celebration as a going concern within effect from 20.09.2005. Copies of ledger accounts of all assets together with copies of bills are submitted herewith. You may kindly note that the opening balance mentioned in the ledger account is balance incurred upto the date of the formation of partnership. 5. It is seen that assessee firm has debited expenditure on its account ₹ 2,75,908 (66,87,372-64,11,464) which is required to be determined true value of investment proportionate to total cost of value determined as per valuation report received on 08.12.2011 from the Departmental Valuer as mentioned above para. As the valuation report is prepared for entire hotel building this portion of expenditure is also considered to assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2005-06 25,74,079 22,98,171 2,75,908 Proportionate Expenditure during F.Y. 2005-06 as per valuation report On partner's account Proportionate Expenditure during F.Y. 2005.06 as per valuation report. On Firm's account Proportion Expenditure during F.Y. 2005 as per valuation report. ₹ 70,11,772 62,60,199 7,51,571 In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to income tax escaped assessment at least to the above extent for the above Assessment year within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness. The partnership can be made accountable for the cost of construction after the said date. Since the Assessing Officer relies only on the DVO's report it is difficult to appreciate how he contends that the present petitioner had made any unaccounted investment in construction. If we peruse the reasons recorded by him more minutely, we find that a rather unconventional approach was adopted by the Assessing Officer to project the cost of construction over the entire span of financial year 2005- 06. He noted the declared cost of construction by the two assessees during the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06. He took note of the declaration of the petitioner of investment made in construction after 20.09.2005. He then broke up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
