L.D.K. Finance & Investments (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. Dy. C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra

CO 81/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6509 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Valuation report; Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 359 & 357/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 & 2008-09 D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE, VS. M/S. L.D.K. FINANCE & INVESTMENT (P) LTD., AGRA. 127, POCKET B, SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI . (PAN : AABCL 1934 H) C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 (IN ITA NO. 359 /AGRA/2010) ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. L.D.K. FINANCE & INVESTMENT (P) LTD., VS. D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE, 127, POCKET B, SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI. AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2011 ORDER PER BENCH : BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND CROSS-OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS DATED 18.05.2010. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND RELATE TO THE COMM ON ISSUES, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEA LS OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.20,90,925/- IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND RS.27,95,655/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WORKED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND THE COST DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING THREE DIRECTORS, NAMELY, SHRI LAXMAN DAS KESHWANI, JAGDISH KESHWANI & SHYAM SUNDER KES HWANI AND IS ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE. A SEARCH OPERATION U/S. 132( 1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.01.2008 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF KESHWANI FAMILY, I.E., SHANKAR GUTKHA GROUP OF CASES WHERE SOME MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THEREFORE, NOTICES U/S. 153C WERE ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY ON 15.10.2009 AND 14.07.2009 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2 008-09, REQUIRING IT TO FILE THE RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON EXAMINATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL REQUIRING IT TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND INFORMATION AND TO JUSTIFY TH E INCOMING AND OUTGOING OF FUNDS ETC. WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REQUISITE DETAILS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E INVESTMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDING PLOT NO. 5-6 & 7-8 OF PROPERTY NO.5/157, T RANSPORT NAGAR, AGRA, THE LAND OF WHICH WAS FOUND BELONGING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECT ORS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY. FOR WANT OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE AND SEPARATE DETAILS OF INVES TMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUAT ION OFFICER (DVO) REQUESTING HIM TO DETERMINE YEAR-WISE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE ABO VE PROPERTY. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 45,90,928/- AND RS.61,38,255/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY AS AGAINST DECLARED COST OF CO NSTRUCTION OF RS.25,00,000/- AND RS.33,42,600/- RESPECTIVELY. A COPY OF THE VALUATIO N REPORT WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE RAISED CERTAIN OBJECTIONS ON THE ESTIMATIO N OF COST BY THE DVO, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEING NOT SATISFIED THEREWITH, MADE ADDITI ON OF RS.20,90,925/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 3 2007-08 AND 27,95,655/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 U/S. 69B OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMAT ED BY THE DVO AND THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 4. IN APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE I NVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY MORE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; THAT THE DOCUMENT S FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE DULY FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; THAT T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD PROVIDED VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER & BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR CONSTRU CTION TO THE VALUATION CELL WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE DVO WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND THEREFORE, THE REFERENCE MADE U/S. 142A IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED NO SEPARATE DETAILS FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY NOR ANY SUCH DETAILS WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFI CER U/S. 142A OF THE ACT. NO CREDIBLE REPLY WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY T HE ASSESSEE NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO JUSTIFY THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON T HE DVOS REPORT TO MEET OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D VO AND THAT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO DE LETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS, BEING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SO URCES. ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 4 6. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, RELYING UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT CERTAIN BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF A GROUP COMPANY OF THE KESHWANI FAMILY, NAMELY M/S. LDK SHA RES AND SECURITIES (P) LTD. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THERE BEING NO I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL SUGGESTING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S. 142A IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. IT IS CONTENDED THAT BEFORE REFERRIN G THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WI THOUT DISCHARGING THIS BURDEN, THE REFERENCE MADE U/S. 142A IS NOT TENABLE AT ALL. IT IS NEXT CO NTENDED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER ESTIMATION OF SUCH COST. UNLESS THERE IS SOME MATERIAL FOUND ON S EARCH TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OR THE INVESTMENT SO M ADE BY HIM IS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTI TLED TO GET THE PROPERTY ESTIMATED BY REFERRING THE SAME TO THE DVO. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT I S NOT A PROPER PROCEDURE FIRST TO OBTAIN A REPORT FROM THE VALUATION CELL AND THEN INFORM THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ADMITTED COST IS LOWER THAN THE COST DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTHING IN HIS POSSESSION EXCEPT THE ESTIMATED VALUATION GIVEN BY DVO FOR HIS SUPPORT. THEREFORE, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT B E DISBELIEVED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). CIT VS. B.K. AGARWAL (2009) 183 TAXMAN 434; (II). SMT. AMAR SINGH SURANA VS. CIT (1997) 226 IT R 344 (RAJ.) (III). CIT VS. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) 261 ITR 664 (D EL.); (IV). ITO VS. S.K.K. TEXTILE PROCESSING MILLS (199 0) 38 TTJ(MAD) 178 (SPCL.BENCH); (V). ITO VS. MEGHJI JADAV & CO. 18 ITD 170 (AHMEDA BAD)(TM) ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 5 (VI). ITO VS. RAJESHWAR NATH GUPTA (HUF) (ITA NO.42 95/DEL./2005 DECIDED ON 9.5.2008. (VII). VENKATRAJU MODERN BOILED & RAW RICE MILL VS . ACIT (1997) 57 TTJ 493(HYD). 7. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOU CHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME AND HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFEC TS THEREIN. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. PRATAP SINGH AMRO SINGH RAJENDRA SING AND DEEPAK KUMAR, 200 ITR 788 (RAJ.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, NO DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT IN SUCH BOOKS, THE EXPENSES ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS AND FULL DETAILS AR E ALSO MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF EACH ITEM IN THE BOOKS, SIMPLY BECAUSE A VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN O BTAINED WHICH GIVES VALUATION AT A HIGHER AMOUNT, THE BOOKS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNRELIABLE A ND NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH HIGHER VALUATION CAN BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE ASE OF CIT VS. HOTEL JOSHI, 242 ITR 47 8 (RAJ.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS ACCOUNTS REGULARLY AND THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BASE HIS INFERENCES ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE H IM IN SUCH CASES. SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF ITAT AND HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN R ELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR ALONGWITH THE RECENT DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT, 328 ITR 513 (SC). 8. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE THAT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE VALUATION REPORT WERE POINTED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BEFORE THE VALUATION CELL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 6 FILED A REPORT OF APPROVED VALUER WHO HAS WORKED OU T THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE DETAILED ESTIMATES, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION COMES NEAR TO THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IG NORED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY REASON. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHANTI COM PLEX VS. ITO, 63 ITD 181 (PATNA) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM REGISTERED VALUER WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS NOT ONLY PREFE RRED THE REPORT OF VALUATION OFFICER OVER THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, BUT HAS TOTALLY IG NORED THE LATTER REPORT. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THE REPORT OF AN EXPERT ONLY ACTS AS AN OPINION BEF ORE A JUDICIAL OR QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO WHOM IT IS SUBMITTED. THE APPRECIATION OF SUCH DOCU MENTS IS OPEN TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE B ACKED BY PROPER AND SOUND REASONING. IN THE PRESENT CASE, EVEN THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF THE REG ISTERED VALUERS REPORT OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE OR ANY REASONING ON ITS INCRED IBILITY. HE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED TH E ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UP ON. IT IS BORNE OUT ON RECORD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S. 69B OF THE A CT. THE PROVISION OF THIS SECTION LAYS DOWN AS UNDER : WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANA TION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEE MED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 7 FROM THE PLAIN READING OF AFORESAID SECTION, IT IS APPARENT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B CAN BE INVOKED IF - (I) IT IS FOUND BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT ; (II) IT IS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT EXPANDED ON SUCH INVEST MENT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THAT BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D (III) EITHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT SUC H EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPIN ION OF THE A.O. THESE THREE FINDINGS ARE CUMULATIVE, TO BE RECORDED ON GATHERING THE NECESSARY FACTS, BUT THE BASIC FINDING WHICH IS TO BE RECORDED IS WHETHER TH ERE WAS SUFFICIENT AND COGENT MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT EXPANDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN E XCESS OF THAT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ONUS, IN OUR OPINION, IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROV E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPANDED EXTRA AMOUNT I.E THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THA N THE AMOUNT AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT CERTAIN BILLS AND V OUCHERS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF A GROUP COMPANY OF THE KESHWAN I FAMILY, NAMELY M/S. LDK SHARES AND SECURITIES (P) LTD. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ADMITTEDLY FOUND PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURS E OF ITS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL RECOVERED IN THE SEARCH PROCE EDING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY EXCEEDED TO THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, COULD NOT DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN TO SATISF Y THE CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE MAKING ADDITION U/S. 69B OF THE ACT SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED. IN THE CASE OF VENKATRAJU MODERN BOILED & RAW RICE MILL VS. ACIT ( SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT A PROPER PROCEDURE TO FIRST OBTAIN A REPORT FROM TH E VALUATION CELL AND THEN INFORM THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADMITTED COST IS LOWER THAN THE COST DETER MINED BY THE VALUATION CELL AND THE DIFFERENCE ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 8 WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. NO DEC ISION HAS BEEN CITED BY THE LD. DR CONTRARY TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 10. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ACC OUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER NOWHERE SPEAKS OF ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, RATHER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, LAYING OUR HANDS ON THE YARDST ICK LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINENA VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND PLENT Y OF OTHER DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THE REFERENCE OF PROPERTY FOR VALUATION U/S. 142A AND RELIANCE ON THE VALUATION REPORT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT READ AS UNDER : IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DEC IDED THE MATTER RIGHTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MAT TER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BEING REJECTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS WERE NEVER REJECTED. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSI DERED BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RELIANCE PLACED ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS MISCONCEIVED. 11. APART FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED BILLS/VOUCHERS REGARDING EXPENSES AND A REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUE R BEFORE THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT, BUT NEITHER THE DVO WHILE FRAMING HIS REPORT NOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME. THEY HAVE ALSO NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON AS TO WHY THESE VOUCHERS AND REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS AND, THUS, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E DESERVE TO FAIL. ITA NO. 359/AGRA/2010 ITA NO. 357/AGRA/2010 C.O. NO. 81/AGRA/2010 9 12. ADVERTING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BY MEANS OF THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. SINCE, WE HAVE CONFIRMED AND SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DI SMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.10.2011. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY