9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue : Shri Rajendra Agarwal (CA) For The Assessee : Shri Anup Singh (Add. CIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 03.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,17,00,260/- made by the AO on account of difference in cost of construction shown by the assessee and the valuation as per DVO report on the basis of his stands taken in the AY 2011-12 invalidating the action of the AO of referring the case for valuation u/s 142A of the IT. Act on the basis of non rejection of books of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51,806 1,17,00,255 2010-11 86,31,310 2,03,02,785 1,16,71,475 2011-12 2,24,105 5,27,102 3,02,997 Total 1,75,06,966 4,11,81,693 2,36,74,727 3. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 for the impunged assessment year was issued after seeking approval from the appropriate authority. The notice was duly served on the assessee and the objection so filed by the assessee were disposed off by the Assessing Officer and the same is not under dispute before us. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished a copy of valuation report. The AO on perusal of valuation Reports noted that the Registered Valuer has not pointed out any evidential observation to establish the basis of his valuation on the same hotel building at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings as directed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in appellant's own case for AY 2011-12, action of the AO in referring to DVO for the valuation of the property has been held invalid as the same was referred without rejecting the books of accounts. Even during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the AO has not rejected the books of accounts. Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in its order dated 14/06/2017 has already dealt with the issue in details and has come to the conclusion that the reference to the DVO during the year under consideration is subjected to the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema. In this regard, Hon'ble ITAT in the set aside order at para 5.2 had considered the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. Per contra, the ld AR has relied on the findings of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 738/JP/15 dated 14.06.2017 and subsequent decision of the ld CIT(A) dated 3.11.2017 wherein the addition on account of difference in valuation of the Hotel building was deleted on account of the fact that reference to DVO was done without rejecting the books of accounts. It was submitted by the ld AR that facts of the present case are identical and basis the same valuation report which formed the basis for addition in AY 2011-12, the addition has been made for the impunged assessment year without rejection of the books of accounts and hence, the addition so made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A brought in by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f 1.10.2014 are not applicable.
9. On perusal of the assessment order, we find that there is no finding recorded by the Assessing officer regarding rejection of books of accounts for the impunged assessment year. Further, the reference to DVO in the instant case is even prior to the issuance of notice under section 148 on 21.01.2016. Therefore, we don't find any infirmity in the findings of the ld CIT(A) that the AO has not rejected the books of accounts and addition of ₹ 1,17,00,260 on the basis of the earlier DVO report is not valid and the same was rightly deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/06/2018. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
