9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Brief facts are that there was a search and seizure operation carried out at the residence of Shri V. Selvam under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). During the course of search it was found that some unexplained investment in immovable properties and unexplained expenditure in the form of construction of property at Katpadi, Vellore-632 006. Accordingly, a notice u/s 153A read with section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee . The assessee filed returns of income and assessments u/s 153A read with sections 153C and 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06 were completed on 22-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the date of search. The additional incomes that have been offered by the assessee in the post-search returns filed are clearly as a direct result of evidences found in the course of search. Hence the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer ( DVO for short) for estimation of the cost of construction of the house and the DVO accordingly estimated the cost of construction of the house at ₹ 2,51,36,000/-. The report of the DVO was furnished to the assessee and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the cost of construction as per the report of the DVO should not be adopted and the excess cost of construction over and above the cost of construction admitted in the return be brought to tax as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost was only ₹ 183.78 lakhs as against the cost of ₹ 163.58 lakhs admitted by the assessee and his wife in the return u/s 153C of the Act, he was of the opinion that no addition was called for towards under-statement in the cost of construction of the house under section 69-B of the Act and the addition under this head for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06 were deleted. 4. On being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the matter before the Tribunal. The learned DR supported the order passedi by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(Appeals) without considering the facts in the right perspective reduced the cost by 10% from CPWD rates and further granted 10% towards self-supervision. The learned DR furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied with the cost of construction as offered by the assessee, referred the matter to the DVO and the DVO estimated the cost of construction at ₹ 251.36 lakhs. The difference between the estimation made by the DVO and the cost of construction admitted by the assessee i.e. ₹ 251.36 lakhs ₹ 163.59 lakhs = ₹ 87.77 lakhs, has been assessed equally u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee and his wife. Before the CIT(Appeals) it was submitted that the estimate of cost of construction as per the Registered Valuer was only ₹ 119.75 lakhs and the cost admitted by the assessee was ₹ 163.59 lakhs and the same was much higher than the value adopted by the Registered Valuer. The value estimated by the DVO at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter going through the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), we find no infirmity in the order passed by him. This ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 8. Insofar as the decision of the Tribunal relied on by the CIT(Appeals) in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Pakkiarathinam Dass (supra) we find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). In the circumstances, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed. 9. In the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 993/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04, there is another ground relating to deletion of interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue involved in this ground of appeal is whether the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
