DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Vardhman Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 4063/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86483 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRISH BEDI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 4063 /DEL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 0 7 DEPUTY CIT, VS. VARDHMAN LAND DEVELOPERS CIRCLE 17(1), PV T. LTD., 4134 - PAHARI DHIRAJ, NEW DELHI. DELHI. (PAN: AA A CV2677D ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPE LLANT BY: SHRI AMRISH BEDI, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: S /S HRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. & SHAI LESH GUPTA, CA ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR : JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WHEREBY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE A DDITION OF RS.73,94,673 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE. 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LEARNED AR HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. 2 4. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.8,92,87,928. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE D. V.O. WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.8,18,93,255. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT RS.73,94,673 HAS BEEN U NDER ASSESSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THIS AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS INITIATED DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ADDITION WAS OBJ ECTED ALSO ON THE BASIS THAT THE VALUATION IS AN ESTIMATE AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND THE EXPENDITURE AS PER VALUATION REPORT IS LESS THAN 10% AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A SMALL DIFFERENCE BASED ON AN E STIMATION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSIDERING THESE MATERIAL ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DULY AUDITED AND THE EXPENSES SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND 3 VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED NOR ANY DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED AND THE EXPENDITURE AS PER VALUATION REPORT IS LESS THAN 10%. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IS REASONED ONE AND HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 . 0 1 . 201 5 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.C. MEENA ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 / 0 1 /201 5 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR