Smt. Sonia Chawla, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-2 (4)., Kanpur

ITA 28/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70560 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUJA RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN; SWARN SINGH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.28/LKW/2012 A.Y.: 2003-04 SMT. SONIA CHAWLA, 120/187, LAJPAT NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAKPC2704K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY S/SHRI SWAR N SINGH & S.K. JAIN, FCA RESPONDENT BY SMT. PUJA RAJ, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 17/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/10/2013 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 25/11/2011 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,15,274/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF PREMISES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION MADE BY D.V.O. IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. [2] 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE D.V.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE REDUCTION OF ONLY 7.5% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION CHARGES WHEREAS THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 10%. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT 6% BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD & UPPWD RATES IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AND IF BOTH THESE ASPECTS ARE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AM OUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVISED ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION AFTER ALLOWING THESE TWO BENEFITS IS ONLY RS.13,080/-FOR THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WH ICH IS ABOUT 1.3% OF THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND SUCH SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE D.V.O. IS NEGLIGIBLE AND NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED FOR THE SAME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHICH SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ALLOWING OF 10% SUPERVISION CHARGES AND DEDUCTION OF 6% BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD & UPPWD RATES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CO PIES OF THE JUDGMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 3. LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SU BMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE DECLARED INVESTMENT OF RS.10,08,600/- IN THE PREMISES IN QUESTION AND ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER D.V.O. IS RS.11,23,874/- AND FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,15,274/-, ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% ON [3] ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISION CHARGES AND TO THE EXTENT OF 6% ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CPWD AND UPPWD RATES, LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE TWO CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS ALSO. EVEN IF THESE TWO CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CONSIDER ED, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY D.V.O. IS ABOUT 11% OF THE DECLARED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR SUCH A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE MADE BY THE D.V.O., IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:23/10/2013 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. T HE APPELLANT 2. T HE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. T HE CIT( A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR