9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the information as required by the AO. On verification of the submissions made by the assessee's representative, the AO considering the cost of construction of the property which was let out to Incor Hospitals has adopted the value of the property at Rs. 5,04,03,584/- as on 31/3/2014. The Ld. AO then referred the matter to the DVO vide letter dated 7/9/2016. The DVO submitted his report on 29/06/2017 valuing the above property at Rs. 9,47,06,000/-. Considering the valuation report submitted by the DVO, the AO made addition to the income of the assessee for Rs. 4,43,02,416/- and concluded the assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR made various submissions on the impugned additions made by the Ld. AO. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. Assessee also filed cross objections. 3. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een CPWD rates and local rates and a rebate of 10% towards self supervision), when the DVO has considered this issue and, in his valuation report dated 29/06/2017, allowed relief of 7.5% towards self supervision vide his noting at column 11 of his valuation report that "based on the statement made by the assessee, that he has executed the work through self supervision by purchasing the materials and by employing labour directly, a rebate of 7.50% is allowed", and at column 10 of the said report that "the assessee has not submitted any bills and/or payment details, bills raised by contractors/suppliers, work orders etc., for the material used in the work." 6) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the cost of construction incurred by the assessee and disclosed in the financial statements before the date of inspection of the DVO requires to be included in the cost incurred by the assessee for the purpose of arriving at the difference in cost of construction, when the DVO, in his valuation report dated 29/06/2017 has clearly noted that "in the calculation, it is assumed that the period of construction is from December 2009 to March 2013, because the permission has been received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is required. 7. Ground No.3 is with regarding allowing relief by Ld.CIT(A) for Rs. 15,65,500/- with respect to cost of lifts. The Ld. AR submitted that the DVO erred in considering the invoices submitted for cost of lifts and has wrongly valued the same at Rs. 24,30,000/- for 13 passenger capacity and Rs. 18,22,500/- for 8 passenger capacity. The Ld. DR argued that the bills were not provided before the DVO. We find from the page no.95 & 96 of the paper book submitted by the Ld. AR the copies of bills have been made available to us and before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has therefore rightly considered the cost of invoices given by Kone Elevator India Private Limited vide Inv No.133612336 dt. 29/07/2013 for Rs. 16,05,000/- for 13 passenger capacity and Rs. 10,82,000/- and vide Inv No. 133611583, dt.29/06/2013 for 8 passenger capacity. The cost of lifts is evidenced by the invoices issued by the supplier which was also produced before us. Therefore, on going through these documents and the facts involved in this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. 8. Ground No.4 relating to cost of transformers esti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that in order to suite the requirements of the lessee, this additional construction was warranted and it has been rightly accounted in the books of account as capital work in progress. The Ld AR also placed before us the copies of accounts submitted before the Registrar of Companies before any reference made to the DVO by the AO. The Ld AR also submitted that except the construction of the impugned property, no other property was under construction by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Years. Per contra, the Ld. DR argued that since the completion of construction has been submitted to the GVMC on 2/4/2013, no construction after the period should be considered for valuation of the property under dispute. The Ld. DR could not demonstrate that the capital work in progress shown in the books of accounts pertains to any other property. We find force in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are of the considered view that the construction activities as disclosed in the books of accounts for the impugned property after the submission of documents from GVMC on 2/4/2013 deserves consideration towards cost of construction. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the same and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
