9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l unit falls under 'D' category of Delhi. Considering the fact that the A.O. has not assigned any reason to reject the valuation report submitted by the assessee and apart from the same the A.O. has not even provided opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the DVO and not considered the objection filed by the assessee on the Report of the DVO, further considering the fact that as on 22/09/2014, the cost of construction as per Stamp Duty Rules being Rs. 11,160/- per square meter which has been considered by the Government Valuer while giving the Valuation Report which was supported by the Notification published by the Government of NCT Delhi, in our opinion, the authorities have committed error in accepting the Report of the DVO and rejecting the Valuation Report of Government Approved Valuer submitted by the assessee. A.O. should have summoned the DVO for cross examination to ascertain the basis of the rates or to ascertain the contradictions in the rate adopted by the DVO and the Stamp Duty Rules in the absence of the same, the A.O. committed error in relying on the said report of the DVO and making addition which not only erroneous but also the same is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial year 2014-15. 6) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts while ignoring that the D.V.O. valued the property on the basis of one Annexure A-1, which was seized at the time of search from the residence of the assessee indicating details regarding the materials and fitting to be used in the construction and interiors decoration of the said property. This annexure was entered into between Assessee and Builder. Basically, this Annexure-A is specification for re-development construction and furnishing work. However, due to dispute between the assessee and Builder, the Annexure-A was never executed and hence to rely on this specification by the D.V.O. for computing estimated cost of construction is improper and unjustified. 7) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring the comments of DVO on page no. 3 of his valuation report in which it has also been mentioned that while preparing the valuation report information was gathered by surveying the area opposite column Reference to sale, instances / land rate date relied on and their relevance . However no such information was provided to assessee even weighted cost index a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent vendees vide three different registered sale deed much before the D.V.O. visited the premises for preparation of his valuation report. The D.V.O. for preparation of his valuation report had ignored the fact that the above said vendees of three different floors furnished their respective floors out of their own funds and hence the valuation report made by D.V.O. is erroneous and arbitrary and does not support ground reality. 5) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring the fact that the D.V.O. in his valuation report while segregating the total cost of construction estimated by him has not indicated the nature of construction activities taken by assessee during the financial year 2014-15. 6) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts while ignoring that the D.V.O. valued the property on the basis of one Annexure A-1, which was seized at the time of search from the residence of the assessee indicating details regarding the materials and fitting to be used in the construction and interiors decoration of the said property. This annexure was entered into between Assessee and Builder. Basically, this Annexure-A is specification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruction of Rs. 77,93,310 adopted by D.V.O. and of Rs. 35,56,559 out Rs. 42,19,483/- actually incurred by the assessee) u/s 69 of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while taking into consideration the valuation report of D.V.O. which is erroneous and arbitrary as the rate of construction adopted by the D.V.O. is on higher side and based on estimate and assumption. 3) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while relying on the estimated cost of construction adopted by the DVO and has ignored the minimum unit rate of construction as per the notification dt. 22.09.2014 issued in pursuance of Rule-4 of the Delhi Stamp Prevention of under valuation of instrument rules 2018. 4) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring that the assessee had sold the unfurnished three floors to different vendees vide three different registered sale deed much before the D.V.O. visited the premises for preparation of his valuation report. The D.V.O. for preparation of his valuation report had ignored the fact that the above said vendees of three different floors furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money was received from her husband inspite of the fact that all the sources of Rs. 6,50,000 in the hand of spouse of the assessee alongwith documentary evidences were properly disclosed. PRAYER: In view of the above, it is to state that the estimated cost of construction of Rs. 77,93,310 by D.V.O. is not justified and far excess them Rs. 42,19,483 as declared by the assessee and hence the estimated cost of construction computed by the D.V.O. should not be accepted as correct because the method adopted by D.V.O. is not proper and based on assumptions and therefore it is prayed that such valuation should be declined and fresh valuation report should be obtained in order to provide justice to the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are as under:- Search, seizure and survey operations under section 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted on 06.05.2016 and subsequent dates in the case of assessee along with the other cases of Sh. Ramesh Chander Aastha Others Group of cases at various residential business premises. During the course of search, certain docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Special Inspector General (Registration) vide notification dated 22.09.2014 in which and as per above said notification issued by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi, the minimum rate of construction was stipulated at Rs. 11,160/- per sq. meter and Rs. 1,036/- per sq. meters for construction of residential unit falls under 'D' category of Delhi. In view of the above DVO Valuation should not be accepted and it is my humble prayer to Hon'ble Bench to order for a fresh valuation report in order to provide me justice. I am financially finished, my husband's business is also declined miserably after search by Income Tax Department and at present we have no house of our own to live as everything is sold to clear the trade liabilities to maximum extent. 6. Since the assessee not appeared and showed her inability to engage the Counsel due to financial constraint, we have requested the Ld. Departmental Representative to assist the Bench and the Ld. Departmental Representative assisted the Bench and also filed a written synopsis which reads as under:- The valuation being a technical matter has to be addressed by the DVO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Verma invested a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the construction and he was paid the said amount by way of cheques. The assessee invested a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- by way of cash in the A.Y. 2016-17. Shri. Ramesh Aastha invested Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of cash in A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee further invested a sum of Rs. 33,50,000/- by way of cash as withdrawn from her saving bank. She further invested Rs. 2,19,483/- by way of cheque in the A. Y. 2017-18. Shri. Ramesh Aastha further invested Rs. 6,50,000/- by way of cash in the Assessment year 2017-18. Thus the total amount invested by the assessee, her husband, Kunal Verma is Rs. 80,69,483/- 8. During the search proceedings a document has been seized mentioning the details regarding the material and fitting used in the construction and interior decoration of the said property. The Ld. A.O. referred the case to District Valuation Officer ( DVO for short) for determine the year wise investments made by the assessee in the construction of property at A-111, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi and the DVO submitted the valuation report on 10/01/2019 by valuating the total cost in following manners:- Assessment Year 2015-16- Rs. 46,17,578/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
