9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is maintaining books of account, the Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to the DVO without rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has sold the flats and majority of the purchasers of the flat occupied the same. Therefore, the improvement made by the respective purchasers of the flat has to be considered only in the hands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2009-10. 2. Shri A.V. Sreekanth, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee constructed a flat at Old Mahabalipuram Road. The construction was in fact started in financial year 2006-07 and it was completed during the financial year 2008-09. The expenditure relating to financial year 2009-10 relates to unfinished work such as flooring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was ₹ 45,13,46,810/-. However, the DVO estimated the cost of construction at ` 48,45,39,000/-. The difference of ₹ 3,31,92,190/- was found to be unaccounted investment made by the assessee for construction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) without any justifiable cause, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 3. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual customers. The Valuation Officer without ascertaining the improvement made by the purchasers of the flats, estimated the cost of construction. According to the ld. Counsel, if at all there was any additional construction or improvement made in the building it has to be added only in the hands of the purchasers of the flat and not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mprovement in the flats, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no addition can be made in the hands of the present assessee. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2016, at C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
