A.Venkatesh, Erode V. DCIT, Erode

ITA 173/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51776 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR STDG
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.173(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI A.VENKATESH, PROP. SRI AVATHAR JEWELLERS, 3, MUTHURANGAM STREET, ERODE. PAN ABLPV6596V VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE I, ERODE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.174(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SMT. UMA VENKATESH, THE INCO ME-TAX OFFICER, PROP.SRI AVATHAR JEWELLERS, VS. WARD I(2), 3, MUTHURANGAM ST., ERODE. ERODE. PAN AAQPU0529E. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCAT E RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JR. STDG.COUNSEL. DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R - - ITA NOS.173 & 174 OF 2010 2 PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2003-04. THE APPEALS A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(APPEALS)-I AT COIMBATORE, BOTH DATED 22-12-2009. THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). 2. THE ADDITIONS IN THESE CASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON THE QUESTION OF COST OF CONS TRUCTION OF A BUILDING. IN BOTH FILES THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HA S MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,83,685/- EACH. 3. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE TO ADOPT THE STATE PWD RATES IN WORKING OUT THE COST OF CONS TRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELO W HAVE ADOPTED THE CPWD RATES. DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF EACH CASE, WHEREVER NECESSARY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN TAKING - - ITA NOS.173 & 174 OF 2010 3 THE VIEW THAT THE STATE PWD RATES WOULD BE MORE REA LISTIC THAN THE CPWD RATES. 4. NOW CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASES AN D PARTIALLY ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEES TO AD OPT THE STATE PWD RATES, WE REDUCE THE ADDITION TO ` 75,000/- EACH IN BOTH THESE CASES. 5. IN RESULT THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.