9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts, he will frame the assessment de-novo. In the result, the assessee’s application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 is allowed and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment in terms of aforementioned observations. Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.4039/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. For The Respondent : Ms. Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr.DR ORDER PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ), relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee sought permission to adduce additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which is Architect s certificate for valuation of construction at ₹ 59,48,600/-. The assessee s reliance is primarily on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sale of IInd Floor (with roof) Rs.37,55,000/- Rs.89,05,000/- Rs.89,05,000/- Capital Loss ₹ 1,10,977/- 4. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of cost of construction claimed by him in construction of flats at ₹ 60,25,471/- with reference to books of account, bills and vouchers maintained by him. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee s claim for the following reasons :- (a) The assessee expressed his inability to produce all bills and vouchers to support his claim for cost of construction except furnishing some of the bills of bricks, iron bars, wooden chowkhat and labours. (b) The Assessing Officer noted following discrepancies in the bills furnished by assessee :- ( i) the assessee furnished two bills dated 23.10.2008 of M/s Babu Ram Shri Chand Kabari both amounting to ₹ 13,668.75 for wooden doors windows Chaukhats. The first bill from Book No.01, Sl. No.001 having detail/measurement of chaukhats and the second bill is also having Book No.01, Sl.No.001 without det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared the sale price of the flats exactly as per the value of Stamp Valuation Officer (D.M.) whereas the actual value of flats in the vicinity is not less than ₹ 50 lacs having super covered area of 121.25 Sq.Meter (One Drawing/ dining Room, Four Bed Rooms, One Kitchen, Lobby two toilets) but inflated the cost of construction. The cost of construction adopted by the Stamp Valuation Officer is ₹ 7,500/- per Sq.Meter is according to the Govt. Rates which has been applied by the Stamp Valuation Officer. Thus, the cost of construction of all the three floors comes to ₹ 27,28,125/- (Rs.7,500 X 121.25 X 3 Floors). The rates of construction by the Government although represents on the higher side than the actual cost of construction by the private contractors but giving benefit of the same to the assessee and considering the same reasonable authentic, the cost of construction is adopted @ ₹ 7,500/- per Sq.Meter. 5. He, accordingly, computed the capital gains at ₹ 31,86,370/- as against the loss of ₹ 1,10,977/- declared by the assessee. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had explained the reasons for discrepancies pointed out by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. The order of the AO is confirmed. The ground of appeal no.1 is dismissed. 6. Ld. counsel referred to page 148 of Paper Book, wherein, details of all purchases made with name of parties, address, TIN Number, PAN Number, details of Item Purchased and Mode of Payment is given. Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer is not competent to make valuation of property and he should have referred the matter to an expert such as Government approved valuer or DVO. Ld. counsel further referred to ld. CIT(A) s findings, as reproduced earlier, and pointed out that he has not examined the details furnished by assessee. Ld. DR submitted that onus was on assessee to establish the cost of construction which he failed to substantiate and, therefore, the additional evidence in the form of Architect s certificate should not be admitted. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has adopted the cost of construction as per Stamp Valuation Ready Reckoner which cannot substitute the actual cost of construction provided assessee is able to substantiate his claim. However, if assessee is not able to subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
