DCIT (OSD), Dehradun V. M/s. Motorcraft Automotive, Dehradun

ITA 1724/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9706 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1724/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) DCIT(OSD), RANGE 1, VS. M/S MOTORCRAFT AUTOMOTIVE , DEHRADUN. 124-1, STREET NO.4, RAJENDRA NAGAR, DEHRADUN. (PAN/GIR NO.N.A.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : MS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR.DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA: AM THIS IS A REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DEHRADUN DATED 30.12009 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READS A S UNDER: THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-I, DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE REP ORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFIER. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE WE DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX-PARTE QUA-THE ASSESSE E. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING, THE VALUE OF WHICH HAS BE EN ADMITTED TO BE RS.2402173, BUT AS PER THE REPORT OF THE DVO, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y IS RS.3107870. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.705697. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH TTHE VALUATION AND THE BASIS OF VALUATION AS ADOPTED BY THE DVO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATI ON REPORT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS I.T.A. NO.1724/DEL./2009 (A.Y. 2000-01) 2 OF CPWD RATES BUT, IT IS THE UPPWD RATE WHICH SHOUL D HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE DVO. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLA HAHAD HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMARI, REPORTED IN 182 ITR 436 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.705697. BE ING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED TH IS ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RAJ KUMARI (SUPRA), THE DVO SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE UPPWD RATES AND SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED 15% AS SUPERVISION CHARGES, AS AGAINST 7.5% ALLOWED BY HIM . NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDE D THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF RAJ KUAMRI (SUPRA) AND LD.DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SP ECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND NO GO OD REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND HEN CE WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. WE WOULD LIKE T O MENTION THAT LD.DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW THAT EVEN IF UPPWD RATES ARE ADOPTED , THE VALUE OF BUILDING WILL BE MORE THAN RS.24.02 LAKH SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE FEE L THAT EVEN IF IT EXCEEDS, IT WILL BE A MINOR DIFFERENCE FOR WHICH NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL THAT SUCH COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NO T CORRECT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 10.09.2009. (A.D. JAIN) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: SEPT. 10, 2009. *SKB* I.T.A. NO.1724/DEL./2009 (A.Y. 2000-01) 3 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A), DEHRADUN. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT