Shri U.K. Samal (HUF), Bhopal V. The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal

CO 87/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8529 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) A NOS. 274 TO 276/IND/2012 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS U.K. SAMAL HUF BHOPAL PAN AAAHV 2660 L :: RESPONDENT CO NOS. 85, 86, & 87/IND/2012 A.YS. 2003-04, 2004-05,2005-06 U.K. SAMAL HUF BHOPAL PAN AAAHV 2660 L :: APPELLANT VS. ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SHRI V.K. KARAN ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA DATE OF HEARING 24.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24 .05.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS AGAINST T HE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 30.3.2012, PASSED BY THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BHOPAL, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERR ED CROSS- 2 OBJECTIONS, WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THESE APPEALS. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, WHEREIN IDENTICAL G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 2. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELET ING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.68,806/-, RS.68,806/- & RS.68,806/- FOR A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06, RESPECTIVELY, ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LIP PREMIUM. 2.1 DURING HEARING, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS/IMPU GNED ADDITIONS, WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER: 3.4 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. IT IS FOUND THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT SHOWING VARIOUS PAYMENTS OF LIP PREM IUM. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION AFTER GIVING FINDING THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED RECEIPT OF LIP PAYMENT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LINK THE PAYMENT SHOWN IN THE BANK ALC WITH THE LIP PAYMENT. 3.5 BEFORE ME THE APPELLANT FILED COPIES OF LIP PRE MIUM. SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE A.O. A NOTICE U/S 46A WAS SENT TO THE A.O. INVITING HIS OBJECTION TO 3 ADMISSION OF THE SAME, IF ANY. IN REPLY THE A.O. HAS SAID THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THESE DOCUMENTS BEFO RE HIM AND SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE ADMITT ED. AN EXAMINATION IT IS FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE LIP RECEIPTS . THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A. THEY ARE A DMITTED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THEM ALONGWITH THE BANK STATEMENT S FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AFTER COMPARING THE RECEIPTS WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENT IT IS FOUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. THE BANK ACCOUNTS THROUGH WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE ARE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139(1) WELL BEFORE THE SEARCH THESE LIP PAYMENTS WE RE SHOWN AND REBATE U/S 88 I DEDUCTION U/S 80C WAS DULY CLAIMED. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT ALL PAYMENTS OF LIP PREMIUMS ARE ACCOUNTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS ARE INVALID HENCE THE SAME ARE DELETED. S. A.Y. POLICY NO. POLICY POLICY NO. TOTAL NO. 351828745 351490437 351490462 1 2003 - 04 71886 15960 15892 103738 2 2004-05 71886 15960 15892 103738 3 2005-06 71886 15960 15892 103738 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID LIP PREMIUM IN RESPE CT OF THREE POLICIES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITI ON IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. A QUERY WAS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENTS M ADE TOWARDS YEARLY PREMIUM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. VIDE LETTER DA TED 18.11.2010, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T HESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND PRODUCED THE DETAILS THEREOF. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THESE DETAIL S IN PARA 3.3 4 (PAGES 3 TO 5) OF HIS ORDER. THERE IS A CATEGORICAL FINDING BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWIN G PAYMENTS TOWARDS LIP PREMIUM WERE EXAMINED BY HIM AND NOTICE U/S 46A WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND INVITED HIS O BJECTIONS FOR THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM. AFTER CONSI DERING THE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OBJECTIONS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT S, THROUGH WHICH, THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE MADE ARE DISCLOSE D ONE. THERE IS ANOTHER FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY DISCLOSED THESE PAYMENTS IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THAT TO O, WELL BEFORE THE SEARCH, WHEREIN, THESE PAYMENTS WERE SHOWN AND REBA TE U/S 88 ALONG WITH DEDUCTION U/S 80C WERE DULY CLAIMED, MEA NING THEREBY, THE PAYMENTS OF LIP PREMIUM WERE ACCOUNTED FOR. IN VIEW OF THESE UNCONTROVERTED FINDING, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSU E, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT T O OUR NOTICE. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. IDENTICAL IS THE SITUATION IN OTHER AYS ALSO ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFOR E, OUR CONCLUSION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER AYS I.E. AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06 ALSO. 5 3. NEXT COMMON GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETION OF ADDIT IONS OF RS.1,61,781/- (AY 2003-04), RS.1,71,088/- (AY 2004- 05) AND RS.1,79,724/- (AY 2005-06), RESPECTIVELY, ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN FDRS. 3.1 THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE I S IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS/ADDITIONS WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A): 4.4 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. ON EXAMINATION IT I S FOUND THAT ALL FDRS SUBJECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WERE RENEWAL OF FD RS TAKEN IN THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE YEARS IN APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAD SUB MITTED DETAILS OF OLDER FDRS AND THEIR RENEWALS BEFORE THE A. O. THE APPELLANT H AD ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM THE BANK CERTIFYING THAT THE FDRS SUBJECT MATT ER OF THE ADDITIONS WERE RENEWAL. THE A.O. IGNORED THESE EVIDENCES AND WRONG LY HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE FDRS WERE NOT EXPLAINED. IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FDRS WERE NOT MADE IN THE PR EVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. IN APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THA T THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS ARE INVALID HENCE THE SAME ARE DELETED. A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-2004 161781 2004-2005 171088 2005-2006 179724 6 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ALL YEARS. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD, OBJECTIONS RAISED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND FIND THAT TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS OF IDBI BANK ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOURCES OF THESE F DRS WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS ARE THE MATURITY AMOUNTS AFTER THE RENEWAL OF EARLIER PERIODS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ LD. CIT,DR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, THE EXPLANATION WAS OFFERE D VIDE REPLY DATED 14.12.2010 BY FURTHER CLAIMING THAT NO FRESH AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN THE OLD FDRS ON THEIR MATURITY AND THESE WERE ME RELY GOT RENEWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUMMARISED THE DETAILS IN PARA 4.3 (PAGE 10) OF HIS ORDER. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY SUBMITTED THE LETTER FROM THE CONCERN ED BANK CERTIFYING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS ARE OUTCOME OF OLD FDRS AFTER RENEWAL. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO J USTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS 7 CONCLUSION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO AYS 2004-05 & 2005 -06 ALSO. FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THIS GROUND OF T HE REVENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 4 THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITIONS OF RS.14,28 ,571/- (AY 2003-04), RS.14,28,571/- (AY 2004-05) AND RS.14,28, 571/- (AY 2005-06), RESPECTIVELY, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE. 4.1 THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE I S IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS/ADDITIONS WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A): 5.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. IN THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS WRI TTEN THAT OVOS REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN ORDER T O EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THIS FINDING THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS EXAMINED. IT IS FOUND THAT THE OVOS REPORT IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IN PARA 5.5 OF HIS REPORT T HE OVO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM JUNE 1991 TO JAN. 1992. IN PARA 10 THE OVA HAS GIVEN FINAL VALUATION OF PROPERTY AT RS.1244650/-. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEASE DEED, THAT THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WAS TAKEN O N LEASE FROM BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN 1989 AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED IN JAN 1992. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1994- 95 FILED U/S 139(1) THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 8 1994-95 THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN REPAYMENT OF LOAN O F RS. 48140/- TO M.P. GOVERNMENT AND CANFIN HOMES LTD. THE AMOUNT OF LOAN FROM M.P. GOVERNMENT IS MENTIONED AT RS.50,000/- + RS.2,00,000/THIS FACT CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM CANFIN HOMES LTD. ALSO. THE A.O. HAD STATED THAT AS PER DOCUMENT DATED 4.5.1999 THE OPENING BALANCE ON 31.3 .1999 WAS NIL AND IT MEANS THAT LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN AFTER THAT DATE. IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE FROM CANFIN HOMES LTD. BEFORE ME. SINCE THIS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. NOTICE UNDER RULE 46A WAS SENT TO THE A.O. INVITING HIS OBJECTION TO ADMISSION OF THE SAME, IF ANY. IN REPLY THE A.O. HAS SAID THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM AND SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS A SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE RAISED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A. IT IS ADMITTED AND THE APPEAL IS DE CIDED AFTER CONSIDERING IT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN LOAN OF RS. I 50 000/- FROM CANFIN HOMES LTD. THE APPELLANT IS A RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT. HE HAS S UBMITTED AN ANNUAL PROPERTY RETURN (APR) FILED BY HIM FOR THE YEAR 1994 WHEN HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF SECRETARY, GAD, M.P. GOVERNMENT. IN THIS APR THE SU BJECT PROPERTY IS MENTIONED. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF T HE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS COMPLETED MANY YEARS BEFORE THE YEARS IN APPEAL. HE NCE NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CAN BE VALIDLY MADE IN THE YEARS IN APPEAL DESPITE OF THE REASON THAT THE DVO HAS VALUED THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION AT AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE FO LLOWING ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-04 1428571 2004-05 1428571 2005-06 1428571 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN ALL YEARS. 4.3 WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.14,28 ,573/- (AY 2003-04), RS.14,28,573/- (AY 2004-05) AND AGAIN OF THE SAME AMOUNT FOR AY 2005-06 WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE NO.281, SECTOR B, MANSAROVAR COLONY, SHAHPURA, BHOPAL, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SO URCE OF COST OF 9 CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHR I U.K. SAMAL WAS THE KARTA OF U.K. SAMAL HUF. HUF WAS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THE AFORESAID HOUSE. AS PER THE REVENUE, NO SATISFA CTORY REPLY/EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY SHRI U.K. SAMAL. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE S UBMISSIONS DATED 18.11.2010 AND 14.12.2010 CLAIMED THAT THE SAID HOU SE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 1991-91, FOR WHICH, A HOUSE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000 AND RS.1,50,000 WAS TAKEN FROM CAN FIN HOMES AND THE GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH. THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT S WERE ANNEXED WITH THE AFORESAID LETTER. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS ON THE PLEA STATED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WAS APPROXIMATED AND TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. IN PARA 5.2, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THA T THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED TWO DECADES BACK AND CLAIMED/EXPLAINED AS UNDER: A) COPY OF RETURNS SINCE 1993-94 ALONG WITH COMPUTA TION SHOWING INCOME FROM THE SAID HOUSE. [PAGE NO.34 6 5] THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUBMITTING HEREWITH THE CHART SHOW ING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING RENT IN HIS RETURN SINCE AY 94- 95 [PAGE 66]. HE ALSO PAID PROPERTY TAX. 10 B) PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF HO USE SINCE PROPERTY TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED ON VACANT PLOT. THE L D. A.O. EVEN DISREGARDED THE RECEIPTS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, A STATUTORY BODY. [PAGE NO.67 71]. C) LEASE DEED WITH BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, A STATUTORY BODY, DATED 11 TH AUGUST, 1989. [PAGE NO. 72 76]. (THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT NO.281, B SECTOR, MANSAROWAR C OLONY, SHAHPURA, BHOPAL MEASURING 4609.25 SQ.FT. AND CONST RUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON IT. THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION WAS 91-91. D) COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT/LEASE DEED WITH THE TENAN TS OF REPUTED COMPANIES [PAGE NO.77 -82]. E) LETTER OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOV T. OF M.P. DATED 2 ND MAY, 1992 GRANTING PERMISSION FOR GIVING THE SAID HOUSE ON RENT KARTA OF HUF, BEING GOVERNMENT OFFICER, W AS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PERMISSION. [PAGE NO.83]. F) LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 30 TH MARCH, 1992, DULY RECEIPTED, TO GOVT. INFORMING THE LEASING THE HOUSE [PAGE NO.84]. 11 G) COPY OF DECLARATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF HO USE AND ITS SOURCE FILED WITH GOVT. DATED 3.2.1995 PURSUANT TO SERVICE RULES FOR EMPLOYEES OF ALL INDIA SERVICES. [PAGE NO. 85 85A ]. THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE FINDING IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER THAT THE DVOS REPORT WAS DULY AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT R ECORD ITSELF MENTIONING THAT THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED UP TO JAN UARY 1992, THE FINAL VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.12,44,650 /-, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR 1994-95, FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT SHO WING RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY AND REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN OF RS.48,140/- (RETURN OF INCOME OF AY 1994-95), A LETTER FROM CAN FIN HOMES AND FILING OF ANNUAL PROPERTY RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 1994 (APR) BY THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF THE SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MP CLEARLY MENTIONING THE PROPERTY ESTABLISHES THAT THE SUBJEC T PROPERTY WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE VALUATI ON OF THE PROPERTY MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AND THE ADOP TION OF THE HIGHER FIGURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY ESTA BLISHES THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT JU STIFIED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFE RE WITH THE 12 CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE AYS ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE HAVING NO MERIT, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED. 5 SO FAR AS THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT BROADLY THESE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC I NTEREST ONLY, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. FINALLY, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS-OB JECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESE NCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 24.5.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 24.5.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!