9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of Rs. 13,44,788 shown by the assessee. In the revised report of the D.V.O. the cost of certain items was estimated at Rs. 5,72,280 against the cost as per books shown at Rs. 4,80,379. In estimating the cost of these items which are 5 in number the District Valuation Officer took the rates from the Executive Engineer, Gujarat P.W.D., Broach. The D.V.O. sought to justify the addition to these rates for contingency and for the prevailing tender percentage on the ground that the trend of tenders actually received by the P.W.D. during the relevant period in relation to the scheduled rate justified such addition. The ITO took the view that an addition of Rs. 92,000 was called for by way of under-statement of the cost of construction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the Valuation Officer having adopted the P.W.D. rates, should have followed the same for electricity and water supply charges also and should not have invoked 30 per cent which could be done under the Delhi Cost Index Method. Substituting the figure of Rs. 75,885 for Rs. 1,32,065 adopted by the Valuation Officer, the addition which is unjustified comes to Rs. 56,180. We are unable to accept the submission of Shri Kappor, the learned departmental representative, that even where the Valuation Officer does not apply the same schedule of rates to all the items of work, his valuation should be accepted in respect of the items where the rates at which the assessee purchased or got the work executed. In fact, in our view, on the assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be understood to lay down that it is not open to the authorities to satisfy that the assessee in fact did incur the expenditure as claimed. If, however, the ITO verifies the actual expenditure and does not find under statement or under-invoice of any item, the ITO would not be justified to make any addition on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer. On the assumption that the ITO even in such circumstances can rely on the report of the Valuation Officer, this appeal must fail because the AAC rightly disallowed Rs. 43,264 added by the Valuation Officer and further disallowed Rs. 56,180 out of Rs. 1,32,065 added by the Valuation Officer. In the result, the appeal on this ground fails. 6. The only other ground of appeal is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
