Krishan Lal Dua, V. ITO, Ward-I,

ITA 414/DEL/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2001
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM AND SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 3495/DEL./1999 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1994-95 ITA NO. 414/DEL/2001 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1993-94 SHRI KRISHAN LAL DUA S/O. SHRI RAM DHAN DASS DUA, P.H.D. HOUSE IDGAH, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT VS I.T.O. WARD -1 PANIPAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A PPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. B. R. R . KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :12 .08.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.1999 AND 20.12.2000 OF THE CIT(A), ROHT AK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND 1993-94 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE EARLIER DISPOSED OF BY THE I TAT VIDE ORDER DATED 2.4.2004. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE D EPARTMENT PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX A PPEAL NO. 316 OF 2004 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2011, THE MA TTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE ITAT FOR FRESH DECISION TO CONSIDER MER IT OF THE VALUATION REPORT. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF. ITA NO. 3495/DEL/1999 & 414/DEL/2001 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT RS. 9,65, 250/-. THE AO CONSIDERED IT LOW AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DV O, WHO VALUED THE CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 12,53,900/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO AFTER ALLOWING SOME RELIEF, ESTIMATED THE VALUATION AT RS. 12,04,4 93/-. THE AO SPREAD OVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO YEARS AND TH E PROPORTIONATE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,65,984/- WAS ADDED IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1993- 94 AND RS. 73,259/- WAS ADDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 94-95. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER TO THE ITAT WHEREIN THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMIA BALA PAUL REPORTED AT 262 ITR 407 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT AL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO POWER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR TH E PURPOSE OF VALUING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE HOUSE PROPE RTY. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2011, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FRESH D ECISION. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE IMP UGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE EXACT AMOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS REFLECTED WHILE THE DVO AND AO HAD ONLY MADE THE ESTIMATES. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT MOST OF THE ITA NO. 3495/DEL/1999 & 414/DEL/2001 3 VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRATAP SINGH RAO, RAJENDRA SINGH AN D DEEPAK KR. (1993)200 ITR 788. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT C ERTAIN ITEMS WERE CONSTRUCTED AFTER 31.3.94. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWE VER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES O F CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT WHICH WAS ONLY BASED ON ESTIMATE, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO T CONSIDERED THIS CONTENTION IN RIGHT PROSPECTIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE M AINTAINED THE VOUCHERS FOR MOST OF THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURR ED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE CONSTRUCTE D AFTER 31.3.1994. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH EXPENSES WERE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER 31.03.1994 AND AS TO WHETHER THE D.V .O. HAS TAKEN THIS FACT INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE ESTIMATING THE COST O F CONSTRUCTION. WE ITA NO. 3495/DEL/1999 & 414/DEL/2001 4 THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FREE TO BRING ANY EV IDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12/08/2015). SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12/ 08/2015 *B.RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 3495/DEL/1999 & 414/DEL/2001 5 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.08.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.08.2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.