9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The total investment declared by the assessee for the above assessment years was Rs. 90,17,190/-. The Assessing Officer, of course, before completing the scrutiny assessment for the said assessment years, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. But, however, before receiving the valuation report, he completed the assessment. Thereafter, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,23,46,000/-. After allowing certain deductions from the estimate made by the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer reduced the cost of construction at Rs. 1,08,51,700/-. Accordingly, based on the above difference in the cost of the construction of the kalyana mandapam, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by a common order dated October 28, 2005, allowed the appeals and hence, the present appeals by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act on the basis of the valuation report is not proper? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in holding that the addition on account of cost of construction as per the report of the Valuation Officer is not proper in spite of the fact that there is a vast differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular assessment. 8. In CIT v. Darshan Singh [2005] 272 ITR 650, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reopening of assessment on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer determining the cost of construction at a figure higher than what was disclosed by the assessee is not justified. 9. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do not find any force in the contention of the Revenue for raising the first question of law. 10. In view of our above conclusion with regard to the first question of law, we also do not find any force in the second question of law. 11. That apart, we do not hesitate to hold that the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer cannot be a basis because the valuation cannot be an arithm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
