9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Report of the DVO with the support of documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee and without adjudicating on the merits of the case, the CIT(A) has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of legal principle, but while doing so, has not discussed the objections filed by the appellant and the relevant documents which they had brought on record in their defence, including the valuation report. That s being the position, we see no reason to reject the claim made by the petitioners, on the contrary, we are satisfied that the order passed is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances, we consider it deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of determination of value of investment in construction afresh after considering the submissions of the appellant assessee and all other relevant documents that he may propose to file before the CIT(A) and on the same being filed, the CIT(A) shall proceed to decide the question in accordance with law at an earlier date. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). Thus, the matter is restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been abolished w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and there are no powers vested with Valuation Officer under Income tax Act, accordingly the Valuation Report and consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) Ludhiana is void abinitio, illegal and bad in law, hence the same may be quashed. 3. Brief facts as per record are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is having income from running of private coaching classes and also having rental income during the year under consideration. For the relevant assessment year 2018-19, the assessee had e-filed its return of income under acknowledgement No.39961533030301218 dated 30.12.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,35,050/-. Survey u/s 133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 21.08.2017 and the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny. The Ld. AO referred the valuation of property/ construction u/s 142A of the Act to the Valuation Cell of the Income tax Department and the valuation officer had filed the report before the Ld. AO on 24.05.2021. On the basis of said valuation report, the difference in valuation of cost of construction as reported by the assessee and the estimate made by the DVO amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been able to justify as to why the report of the DVO should not be taken into consideration and the basis for considering the report of DVO to be incorrect. Just furnishing a secondary report in which modifications have been done with respect to extra deductions claimed will not suffice as an evidence to nullify the report of the DVO. In fact, the basic cost of construction of property as reported by the DVO and as reported by the valuer of the assessee (Sr. No. 2 of the table above)is almost similar with a difference of approximately 5%. The valuer of the assessee has brought extra difference in the value of construction only through the claim of various deductions mentioned at serial no. a to h above. Nowhere the assessee has supported its contention in the grounds of appeal with any supporting evidence regarding the difference in rates of valuation to be based upon PWD vs. CPWD rates. Hence, the valuation report submitted by the assessee cannot be relied upon because no reasons for the divergences as pointed out above have given by the assessee in his submissions. Also, the assessee has not pointed out any defect in the valuation report of the DVO. In above circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that there was personal supervision involved during the construction of property, the said benefit cannot be allowed. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the present appeal is being filed against the said order before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel while reiterating the submission made before the authorities below, contended that the CIT(A) passed order Under section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely based on assumptions, without appreciating the facts of the case and, legal and statutory position of the Law. He argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of difference in Valuation of construction as computed by the assessee and as estimated by the DVO amounting to Rs. 7,37,200/- without appreciating the facts, brought on record by the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not disposing of the objections raised by the assessee on the Valuation Report of the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sent the assessee's valuation report of the approved Valuer by Ministry of Finance along with the objections to the DVO for his comments being technical person instead of rejecting the same in summary manner witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Respectfully, following the Hon ble Jurisdictional HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA in the case of Krishan Kumar Jhamb vs. Income-tax Officer , (Supra) the objection of the appellant to the DVO report is held to be devoid of merits and as such, rejected. 11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee on the Valuation Report of the DVO without appreciating the facts, brought on record by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of difference in Valuation of construction as computed by the assessee and as estimated by the DVO amounting to Rs. 7,37,200/- without appreciating the facts of the case. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have addressed appellant s objections and should have sent the assessee's valuation report of the approved Valuer by Ministry of Finance along with the objections to the DVO for his comments being technical person instead of rejecting the same in summary manner without having technical qualification and granting opportunity of being heard by way of taking rebuttal of the assesses on record. 12. The Hon ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
