Mrs. R.Ponnammal, Erode V. ITO, Erode

ITA 1229/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 122921714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY V R DESHMUKH J
• Assessee Lawyers: N C RAVIKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NOS.1228 & 1229/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06 ) MRS. R. PONNAMMAL NO.128, MANICKAM PALAYAM PIRIVU NASIYANUR ROAD ERODE 638011 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(4) ERODE [PAN AJWPP0485G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.C.RAVIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY V.R. DESHMUKH, JCIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 13-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4-10-2011 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEALS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF T HE LD. CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE, DATED 7.6.2010. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 30.3.2006 ITA 1228 & 1229/10 :- 2 -: ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 80,000/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 23.6.2008 DURING WHICH IT WAS FOUN D THAT THE PLINTH AREA OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDING WAS 22,383 SQ. FT. INSTEAD OF 17,000 SQ. FT. MENTIONED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUN T. CONSEQUENTLY, ACTION U/S 147 R.W.S 148 WAS INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25.7.2008. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS S TATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE DERIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY AND OTHER SOURCES, BUT DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005. AS PER COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN WHICH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PRESIDENT, VILLARASAMPATTI PANCHAYAT, THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OF THE FACTORY BUILDING WAS FOUND TO BE 22,383 SQ. FT. AS AGAINST 17,000 SQ. FT. MENTIONED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THEREFORE , THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS REFERRED TO THE VALUATION CELL, COIMBATORE, U/S 142A OF THE ACT ON 25.8.2008 SINCE NO VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE VAL UE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED FROM A REGISTERED VALUER, ON 27.8.2 008, SHOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 35,47,000/-. LATER, A STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE BUILDING ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M/ S SRI MURUGANANTHA TEX FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2004 AT ` 15,00,000/- AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 AT ` 20,33,749/- WERE SEPARATELY FILED ON 19.9.2008. ITA 1228 & 1229/10 :- 3 -: THE VALUATION OFFICER, VIDE REPORT DATED 5.11.2008 HAS DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 36,98,070/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT AND HER OBJECTI ONS WERE INVITED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS APPORTIONED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE YEAR E NDED 31.3.2004 AT ` 27,31,086/- AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 AT ` 9,54,984/-, AND HAS ADDED THE SAME AFTER REDUCING THE COST DECLARED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 WAS ALSO CHALLENG ED. BUT ASSESSEE WAS DEFEATED ON BOTH COUNTS. 3. BEFORE US, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS G ROUNDS, THE LD.AR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DID NOT PRESS LE GAL GROUNDS BUT ONLY ARGUED ONE GROUND CLAIMING THAT THE FACTORY BUILDIN G BELONGS TO BOTH ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND, WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD.AR HAS ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS PER THE VAL UATION OFFICERS REPORT AND HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS CONTESTED THIS PROPOSITION AND HAS STATED THAT THIS CLAIM NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA 1228 & 1229/10 :- 4 -: 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVALS SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND F ORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR THAT ANY CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. WITH THAT OBSERVATION, WE RES TORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPO SE WITH A DIRECTION THAT IF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND IS FOUND TO HAVE INV ESTED IN THE FACTORY BUILDING AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED, THIS HAS TO BE APPORT IONED TO HIS SHARE IN THESE TWO YEARS AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 4-10-2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH OCTOBER, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR