9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or A.Y.2002-03),(₹ 27,611/-forA.Y.2003-04)(₹ 2,14,952/- for A.Y. 2004-05)}* being erroneous in facts and in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted. [*figures of other years added to consolidate] 2.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment orders passed u/s.153A(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act all dated 31/12/2007 were that the assessee is in transport business. A search u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on 24/11/2005. Consequence there-upon notice u/s.153A was issued and in compliance returns were filed disclosing income as follows:- Sr.No(s) Asst.Year(s) Original Return u/s.139((1) Income declared after search 1. 2002-03 4,54,950/- 6,87,750/- 2. 2003-04 10,59,910/- 18,22,610/- 3. 2004-05 16,16,030/- 19,60,070/- 2.2. The admitted factual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It was also informed that the withdrawals for construction activity have regularly been made out of a bank account maintained by the father of the assessee. Further, it was also contested that even while filing a return additional income of ₹ 7 lacs was declared in compliance of notice issued after the search. It has also been argued that considering the disclosure of ₹ 7 lacs, the total value of the property in question was therefore disclosed at ₹ 37,78,086/-. However, the DVO has estimated the value at ₹ 39,10,563/-. Therefore the ratio between the two was only at ₹ 1,32,467/- . The difference ratio of the two was only 3.39% which was very nominal therefore deserves to be ignored. However the ld.CIT(A) was not convinced and held that once the assessee has himself has admitted an investment of undisclosed investment towards construction of residential house the difference in the cost of construction was rightly assessed by the AO. Being aggrieved; now the assessee is further in appeals. 4. We have heard both the sides. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr.Mukund Bakshi appeared and contested that the difference between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 437,637 27,611 2003-04 962,564 100,000 1,062,564 765,163 1,080,115 214,952 2004-05 492,707 200,000 692,707 387,532 547,046 - 3,078,086 700,000 3,778.086 2,770,270 3,910,553 480,769 700,000 Total cost 3,470,270 Difference between ₹ 39,10,553/- and ₹ 37,78,086/- = ₹ 1,32,467/-(3.39% of ₹ 39,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exact cost of construction being duly supported by relevant bills. 7.2. The second reason for accepting the plea of the assessee is that the DVO has reduced only 5% self supervision rebate, but generally in such type of cases the self supervision rebate is allowed upto 8%. If that concession is granted, then there would be no difference in both the valuations. It is also not fair on the part of the DVO to add an adhoc percentage of architecture fee specially when the assessee has furnished the exact amount of payment. 7.3. Thirdly, it is also apparent that the difference between the two valuations is very nominal. In a situation when only marginal difference was noted, then the Courts have directed to ignore the estimated valuation of the DVO. For this legal proposition, few case laws have been cited, as listed above. Therefore, placing reliance on these decisions, and on due consideration of the cogent material placed as discussed supra, we hereby reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to adopt the valuation of the property as declared by the assessee. This ground for these three years is allowed. 8. Ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 1,50,000/- being erroneous in facts and in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted. 11.1. This ground is not pressed, hence dismissed. 12. For AY 2005-06, Ground No.2 is reproduced below:- 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 50,000/- made by the ld. A.O. on account of alleged payment made in cash treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C. The addition of ₹ 50,000/- being erroneous in facts and in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted. 12.1. During the course of search from the residence, a loosepaper was found showing a payment of ₹ 50,000/- in cash to Bahadur on 20/11/2004. The assessee has denied any knowledge of the said payment. It was also denied that the paper was written in assessee s handwriting. However, the AO was not convinced and held that the said payment was made out of the undisclosed income and taxed accordingly. 13. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the action of the AO was affirmed. 14. Having heard submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.DR has held that the explanation furnished by the assessee was not satisfactory and, therefore, made an addition of ₹ 26,39,987/-. In addition to the said paper, there was an another paper, which was impounded, and that had revealed that a sum of ₹ 3.88 lakhs was due from one Mr.Lala. The said amount was thus taxed in the hands of the assessee. Against the total addition of ₹ 30,27,987/- the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 16. By simply discussing the provisions of section 132(4A), the ld.CIT(A) has held that the document being found in possession of the assessee, therefore, the income noted therein was the undisclosed income of the assessee. The action of the AO was confirmed. 17. We have heard both the sides. We have perused the material placed before us. As per the document placed on page No.179 of the compilation, it had reflected some business transaction in respect of oil and kerosene oil. As per this typed document, there was a mention of parties from whom a business activity was performed. The figures have mentioned the rates applied for the said commodity and the details of the amount received. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
