Dy. C.I.T., Circle 1, Aligarh V. Smt. Renu Maheshwari, Aligarh

ITA 219/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 21920314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 219/AGRA/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE-1, VS. SMT. RENU MAHESHWARI , ALIGARH. PROP. UDIT ENGINEERS, M-46, JANAKPURI, ALIGARH. (PAN:ABFPM 3958 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 29.11.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 15.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,13,290/- MADE BY THE AO ON THE BA SIS OF REPORT OF DIVISIONAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO). 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEC LARING THE REPORT OF DIVISIONAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WHO IS A TECHNICAL EXPERT IN THE RELATED FIELD AS NOT PROPER WITHOUT H IMSELF POINTING OUT ANY TECHNICAL DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE REPORT. ITA NO. 219/AGRA/2013 2 2. IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE ADDITION U/S. 69B OF T HE IT ACT IN A SUM OF RS.16,13,290/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALU ATION IN PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT BY THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE CH ALLENGED THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO ITSELF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO WITHOUT REJ ECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOUND T HAT THE AO WITHOUT FINDING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE A REFERENCE AND, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT, 328 ITR 513 HELD THA T THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS INVALID. EVEN ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. 3. THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) TREATING THE REFERENCE TO BE INVALID. TH E LD. DR WANTED TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND ON HIS REQUEST THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED, BUT NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THIS REGARD. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS NO MERIT AND IS LIABLE TO B E DISMISSED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ITA NO. 219/AGRA/2013 3 REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO TO ESTIMATE THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA (SUPRA). FURTHER, THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REG ARD TO THE INVALID REFERENCE TO THE DVO. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY