9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been valued by the DVO also at Rs. 3.25 crores. In case of cost of investment in building, the cost of construction has been declared by the assessee Rs. 10.79 crores, whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer has estimated the same at Rs. 11.03 crores. Therefore, on comparison of the two, the overall cost shown/claimed by the assessee is lesser than the valuation done by the DVO appointed by the Department. We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly held that since as per the report prepared by the DVO, the value of cost property is more as compared to the cost estimate given by the assessee, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable.Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted the additions made by the AO with the following observations: "The AO in the assessment order has observed that during the financial year 2009-10 that is A.Y. 2010-11, in order to minimize the profit/ income the assessee claimed to have incurred big expenses in the name of purchase/ labour and administrative expenses despite the fact that the scheme was constructed completely and granted BU permission earlier. During the year under consideration the assessee has shown opening WIP of Rs. 94408703/- as on 01/04/2010 and opening WIP as on 01/04/2009 was at Rs. 24186592/-. The AO has further observed that during the assessment year 2010-11 the assessee has incurred purchase expenses of Rs. 63871140/- and other expenses of Rs. 9039872/- and thereafter the AO went on to examine these expenses in detail. Thereafter, the AO has discussed various discrepancies found in the books of accounts of the appellant which have been discussed from page no 25 of the assessment order till page no. 27 and accordingly rejected the books of accounts of the appellant. However, it is noticed that all these findings of the AO are with reference to the expenses incurred by the appellant during the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO referred the project to DVO for valuation of the cost of construction of this project. The reference was made by the Additional CIT Range - 9, Ahmadabad on 24/11/2011 u/s. 142A of the Act. The DVO after making site visits of the project on 13/02/2011 submitted the report to the department on 07/02/2012. The relevant portion of the DVO's valuation report is reproduced as under: Financial Year Cost of investment (Rs.) (Land i/c old structure) Declared by assessee Estimated by this office 2005-2006 30949200 30949200 2006-2007 1550800 1550800 Total 32500000 32500000 Financial Year Cost of investment (Rs.) (Building) Declared by assessee Estimated by this office 2005-06 1043097.50 1338453.02 2006-07 24030299.00 28037599.28 2007-08 11166080.50 11838525.88 2008-09 11145049.00 11486470.99 2009-10 60571478.00 57604361.17 2010-11 25655.00 20596.66 Total 107,981,659 110,326,007 On a perusal of the above, it is seen that the cost of investment in land has been shown by the assessee at 3.25 crores and the same has been valued by the DVO also at 3.25 crores. In case of cost of investment in building, the same is declared b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.25 crores as well. In case of cost of investment in building, the cost incurred by the assessee for completion of the project has been declared by the assessee at Rs. 10.79 crores whereas, the estimation of the DVO is Rs. 11.03 crores. Therefore, since the cost estimated with regard to the reports submitted by the DVO appointed by the Department, both with respect to cost of investment in land as well as the construction cost incurred by the assessee in completing the project, is slightly more than the details/estimate of investment submitted by the assessee, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly deleted the additions made by the AO. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions made by the AO in the instant set of facts. However, we are in agreement with the arguments put forward by the DR to the effect that even if the expenses have been incurred by the assessee in earlier assessment years, since those expenses have been claimed by the assessee in the instant assessment year, the AO is empowered to examine the same in detail and assessee cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
