Smt H.Mashuadha Beevi, Kuttalam V. ITO, Kumbakonam

ITA 1783/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4878 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO.1783(MDS)/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 SMT. H.MASHUADHA BEEVI, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NO.7, SOUTH CAR STREET, VS. WARD I(2), KUTTALAM-609801. KUMBAKONAM. PAN AGPPM2898H. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI S.SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 1999-2000. THE APPEAL IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ITA NO.1783 (MDS)/2009 2 ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) A T TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 27-4-2009 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT CO MPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A KALYANAMANDAPAM AT KUTTALAM. THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS AD MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 37,25,140/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DV O, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AT ` 47 LAKHS. THIS RESULTED IN AN ADDITION OF ` 9,75,000. THIS ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WAS SPREAD OVER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A P ERIOD OF FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03. THE PRO RATA ADDITION MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ` 1,75,500/-. THIS ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL. 3. NOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL IS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 147 WAS BAD IN LAW AND SO ALSO THE ADDITION OF ` 1,75,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ITA NO.1783 (MDS)/2009 3 4. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF CPWD RATES. IF THE STATE PWD RATES WERE TAKEN, THE COST WOULD HAVE BEE N DETERMINED AT A REDUCED LEVEL. SO ALSO CERTAIN OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE , TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, WE DETER MINE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 5 LAKHS, INSTEAD OF ` 9,75,000/- DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 5. THIS REVISED AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OVER THE FOU R YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS ADOPTED BY HIM IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE PERCENTAGE ADOPTED FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS 18. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF ` 1,75,500/- WILL BE MODIFIED TO ` 90,000/-. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1783 (MDS)/2009 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 21 ST JUNE, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.