K.H.Salim, Pudukkottai V. ITO, Pudukkottai

ITA 3365/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4030 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M NARAYANAN RETD
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3365/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DR. K. H. SALIM, NO.16/19, LAKSHMIPURAM I ST STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI 622 001. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), PUDUKKOTTAI. PAN: ANZPS1754P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. NARAYANAN, RETD. JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAGADEVAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.07.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-2, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 27.10.2016 IN ITA NO.171/2009 -10/CIT(A- 2)/TRY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED U/S.2 50(6) R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,43,400/- MADE BY THE LD.AO U/S.69 OF THE ACT BY ADOPTING THE VALUATION OF 2 ITA NO.3365/MDS/2017 THE LD.DVO WITH RESPECT TO THE HOSPITAL BUILDING CO NSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN EXCESS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8, 43,400/- THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS RS.85,79,600/-. HOWEVER THE LD.DVO HAS ESTIMATED TH E VALUE AT RS.94,23,000/- BY ADOPTING THE CPWD RATES. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN PUDU KOTTAI WHICH IS NOT A METROPOLITAN CITY. MOREOVER THE PWD RATES AR E ALSO COMPARATIVELY LOWER THAN THE CPWD RATES. THE LD.AR PLEADED THAT THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION COST DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUATION ESTIMATED BY THE LD.DVO IS LESS THAN 10%, THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT WARRANTED. THE L D.DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE LD.AR. THE CPWD RATES ARE HIGHER THAN THE PWD RATES AND FURTHER 3 ITA NO.3365/MDS/2017 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING BY THE AS SESSEE IS NOT IN A METROPOLITAN CITY WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION COST WILL BE HIGHER. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCES, IM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR RS.8,43,400/- BY EST IMATING THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE BUILDING AT RS.94,23,000/- IS NOT WARRANTED AS PLEADED BY THE LD.AR BECAUSE THE VARIATION IS ME AGER WHEN WEIGHTAGE IS GIVEN TO THE LOCATION AND PWD RATES FA CTOR. THEREFORE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,43,400/- MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF TH E ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 25 TH JULY, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 25 TH JULY, 2017 JR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF