Sri BV Raghavaiah Choudhary, Eluru V. The ACIT, Circle-1., Eluru

ITA 157/VIZ/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2841 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Keywords: Valuation report; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.157/VIZAG/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 B.V. RAGHAVAIAH CHOWDHURY ELURU ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ELURU (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AEXPB0370B APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SINGH, DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS OP TED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NOS.1,2,3,5&6. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE B EING DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. HE RAISED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO TH E GROUND NO.4 WHICH RELATE TO AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN C ONSTRUCTION OF PORTICO BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VAL UER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORTICO ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ORIGINAL VALUATIO N REPORT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROTICOS WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OF THE ASSESSEES, WHICH WAS LATER ON CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT(A). 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CLARIFICATION REPORT OF THE VALUER IN WHICH HE HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE COST OF PORTICO WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE VALUING THE COST OF CONSTR UCTION BUT HE HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE POR TICO IN THE VALUATION REPORT. 2 BUT CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTIONS AND CONF IRMED THE ADDITIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT WHEN THE VALUERS REPORT ARE DOUBTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ONCE HE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES, THEN H E SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE VALUER. SINCE THE C LARIFICATION WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. AND IT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (A) ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE VALUER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE A.O. IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE VALUER WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES S HARE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORTICO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR RE-ADJUDICATIO N OF THE ISSUES IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.12.2009 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 7 TH DECEMBER, 2009 COPY TO 1 BOLLU VEERA RAGHAVAIAH CHOWDARY, D.NO.25-11-20/4, OPP. SAI BABA TEMPLE, N.R. PET, ELURU, W.G. DIST., A.P. 2 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ELURU 3 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM