ACIT, Trichy V. Shri S.P.Chockalingam, Aranthangi

ITA 1207/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90362 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Bad and doubtful debts; Valuation report; Block assessment

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 1207 & 1208/MDS/2011 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 & I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/2011 BLOCK ASSESSMENT : 1988-89 TO 1998-99 (UPTO 10.02. 1998) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. V. SHRI S.P. CHOKALINGAM, 64, AGRAHARAM, ARANTHANGI. PAN : AETPC 7512 E (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 LET US FIRST TAKE I.T.(SS) A. NO. 6/MDS/2011WHICH PERTAINS TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 TO 1998-99. 3. DR. S. MOHARANA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 12,00,300/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 67,38,155/- ON 30.11.1997 TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE CLARIF IED THAT THE ABOVE SAID SUM OF ` 67,38,155/- WAS THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IN HIS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINE D TO THE AUTHORITIES THAT OUT OF ` 67,38,155/-, A SUM OF ` 50,02,000/- WAS THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BAL ANCE OF ` 17,36,155/- WAS THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM O F ` 50,02,000/- REPRESENTED THE TOTAL ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 30.11.1997 TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND ` 17,36,155/- RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE RECOVERY MADE UPTO 30.11.1997. ON VERIFICATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOUND THAT 3 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 THE TOTAL RECOVERY OF LOAN UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS ` 26,50,000/- AND THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING WAS ` 23,52,000/-. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST ELEMENT TO THE EXTENT O F ` 4,41,700/- WAS DEDUCTED IN ADVANCE AND EMBEDDED IN THE TOTAL LOANS ADVANCED TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED AN D ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETER MINED THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AS ` 19,10,300/-. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND DELETED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 12,00,300/-. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT THE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS ` 12,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THE OUTS TANDING AMOUNT WAS QUANTIFIED AS PER BALANCE SHEET IS ` 19,10,300/-. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED TO THE MONEY L ENDING BUSINESS. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ADDITION OF ` 12,00,300/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CIT( APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION SUBSEQUENT TO HIS DECISION WIT H REGARD TO BAD DEBTS. 4 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. A BARE RE ADING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER A CCEPTED THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AT ` 23,52,000/- AS PER THE TRANSACTION FOUND IN THE SEI ZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DETERMINED TH E OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS PER THE TRANSACTION ENTERED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AT ` 19,10,300/-. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE OUTSTANDI NG AMOUNT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS ` 23,52,000/- OR ` 19,10,300/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION SIMPLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET SAID TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LENDI NG BUSINESS IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REFER TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE 5 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 OF SEARCH AND OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION A ND THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY L ENDING BUSINESS. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS BAD DEBTS TO THE EXTE NT OF ` 16,60,000/-. 8. DR. S. MOHARANA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BAD DEBTS TO TH E EXTENT OF ` 16,60,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING LOAN WHICH WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ` 19,10,300/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE LOAN WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS. IN RESP ONSE TO THE QUESTION NO.5, DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION, TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT NO BAD DEBTS EXISTED IN RESPECT OF T HE OUTSTANDING LOAN. THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT INDIVI DUAL DEBTOR ACCOUNTS NEED NOT BE WRITTEN OFF. THE SEIZED MATER IAL ALSO DID NOT DISCLOSE THE ENTRY OF BAD DEBTS. HOWEVER, CIT(APPE ALS) FOUND THAT NO SUCH ENTRY AS BAD DEBTS IS FOUND IN THE SEIZED M ATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL HAS TO BE TAKEN IN TOTO. THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWS THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND IT ALS O SHOWS THE BAD DEBTS. THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER REFERRING TO THE SE IZED MATERIAL IN WHICH THE PROFITS WERE WRITTEN, ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 16,60,000/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSE L, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONLY DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, CERTAIN MATERIALS WERE FOUND WHIC H DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH OPERATION REFERRED TO AN ENTRY OF BAD DEBTS. HOWEV ER, THE REVENUE DISPUTED THE SAME. THE LD. D.R. CLARIFIED THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE WAS THERE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL REGARDING BAD DEBT S. FURTHERMORE, THE DETAILS OF MONEY LENT TO THE INDIVIDUALS ARE NO T AVAILABLE AND WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE WRITTEN OFF THE LOAN AMOUNT AS BA D DEBTS IS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE HAS TO BE RECONSI DERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES 7 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBTS TO THE EXT ENT OF ` 16,60,000/- NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRE SH AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINES S TO THE EXTENT OF ` 29,37,400/-. 12. DR. S. MOHARANA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERAT ION, A POCKET DIARY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. AS PER THIS POCKET DIA RY, THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO HAVE INVESTED A SUM OF ` 29,37,400/- IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. ON EXAMINATION OF ONE SHRI C. SUBRAMANIA N, WHO IS SON OF THE ASSESSEE, CLARIFIED THAT HE IS LOOKING AFTER THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIARY WAS HAND WRITTEN OF HIS FATH ER. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS IS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI SUBRAMANIAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY MATERIAL AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF THE A SSESSEES SON THAT THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS IS BELONGING TO HIS FATH ER, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION. 8 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 13. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SUBRAMANIAN, SON OF T HE ASSESSEE, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING PROFIT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETUR N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME WITH REGARD TO THE VERY SAME INVESTMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED TH E RETURN OF THE ASSESSEES SON, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A POCKET DIARY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, WHICH DISCLOSED THE ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LE NDING BUSINESS. THE ISSUE NOW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER T HE INVESTMENT OF ` 29,37,400/- IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE OR HIS SON. THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT THE M ONEY LENDING BUSINESS BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEES SON. THE DETAILS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT MAD E IN THE ASSESSEES SON ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SW ORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI SUBRAMANIAN SHOWS THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN 9 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 BY HIS FATHER. IN FACT, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO .19, HE ADMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE RELATING TO VIJAYA FINANCE A ND OTHER FINANCE OF HIS FAMILY. HE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ADMI TTED THAT THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS BELONGED TO HIM. IN THOSE C IRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SUBRAMANIAN, THE ASSESSEES SON. ACCORDING LY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE I SSUE OF INVESTMENT OF ` 29,37,400/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SUBRAMANIAN AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INV ESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 15,54,035/- IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AT ARANTAN GI. 16. DR. S. MOHARANA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT ARA NTHANGI WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL INVESTME NT, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. AF TER RECEIVING THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 10 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 ` 15,54,035/-. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL. IN F ACT, THERE WAS SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH WAS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERI AL WITH REGARD TO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HO USE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED SEIZED MATERIAL, MORE PA RTICULARLY, VSR/B&D/S-4, HOW THE CIT(APPEALS) CAME TO A CONCLUS ION THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL? THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMI TTED THAT IN SUCH A CASE, WHAT IS TO BE ADDED IS THE VALUATION O N THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD .COUNSEL, THE VALUATION MADE BY THE V.O. WAS BASED ON THE CENTRAL PWD RATES. IF THE VALUATION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RA TES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD REDUCE CONSIDERABLY. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SEIZE D MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION WHICH WAS MARKED AS VSR /B&D/S-4 SHOWS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FROM 03.07.96 TO 1.1 2.97 AT ` 23,48,748/-. HOWEVER, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADM ITTED BY THE 11 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 31.3.97, 31. 3.98 AND 31.3.99 ARE ` 12,00,000/-, ` 29,00,000/- AND ` 37,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT TO SA Y THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TH E MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND ASSESSED THE UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 15,13,165/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NOW THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE VA LUATION HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE STATE PWD RATES. WE FIND MUCH FOR CE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. STATE PWD RATES HAVE TO BE PREFERRED WHEN COMPARED TO THE CENTRAL PWD RATES. STATE PWD RATES ARE PREPARED AS PER THE LOCAL CONDITION PREVAILING IN T HE PARTICULAR STATE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE VALUATION OF THE BUILDING HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ISSUE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION W ITH REGARD TO ARANTHANGI BUILDING IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ESTIMATING THE COST ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES IN THE YEAR THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 12 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 19. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT KARAIKUDI TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5,09,186/-. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF BUIL DING CONSTRUCTED AT ARANTHANGI, HERE ALSO THE STATE PWD RATES HAVE TO BE ADOPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AT KARAIKUDI IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AF TER ESTIMATING THE COST ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES IN THE YEA R THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 20. NOW COMING TO OTHER APPEALS, VIZ. I.T.A. NOS.12 07 & 1208/MDS/2011, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE VALUATION HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E THE VALUATION AS PER THE CENTRAL PWD RATES. WE FIND SO ME FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ISSUE OF COST OF CONS TRUCTION WITH 13 I.T.A. NOS.1207 & 1208/MDS/11 I.T.(SS) A. NO.6/MDS/11 REGARD TO ARANTHANGI BUILDING IS REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ESTIMATING THE COST ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATES IN THE YEAR THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REV ENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !' ) ( . . . ) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 15 TH MAY, 2015. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 4. 0 81 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.