9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany started construction of building at Village Akelwa for its office, warehouse and production/processing of the goods for carrying out the object of the formation of the company. The petitioner filed its income tax return for the assessment year 1997-1998 within time i.e on 28.11.1997. Along with the return, the petitioner enclosed the balance sheet, Schedule C whereof reflected the details of the fixed asset of the company. Along with the balance sheet, the petitioner filed auditor's report and the certificate of accountant etc. The case of the petitioner is that in the schedule C forming part of the balance sheet, the petitioner has disclosed the investment in the building amounting to Rs.1,18,74,000/-. Similarly income tax return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74.00 56,57,574.00 F.Y. 97-98 41,70,640.00 61,57,815.00 19,87,175.00 "F.Y.98-99 33,89,110.00 50,03,911.00 16,14,801.00 (year ending up to 98) Thus as per above chart the D.V.O has estimated cost of construction more by Rs.56,57,574.00 (in F.Y. 96-97) Rs.19,87,175.00 ( in F.Y 97-98) and Rs. 16,14,801.00 (F.Y 98-99) on receipt of valuation report dated 14.1.2000 the assessee has filed objection vide letter dated 19.2.2001, and after considering the objection raised by assessee, the D.V.O intimated this office vide his letter dated 23.3.2001 (Recd. I this office on 3.4.2001). That the objection raised by assessee is baseless arbitrary and not tenable. As the D.V.O has estimated the cost of construction more by Rs.56,57,574. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A supplementary affidavit dated 17.4.2006 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that for the assessment year 1999-2000, against the regular assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, a fresh report from the D.V.O was called for. On the basis of the fresh report, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the first appellate authority on the ground that the difference shown in the return and in the fresh report of D.V.O, is less than 10%. We have been informed that the said order has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the second appeal. Besides the above, we find that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
