Mrs. Amita Narang, Jammu V. The Joint Commissione of Income-tax, Jammu

ITA 43/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2220 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.43(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AALPN1549E SMT. AMITA NARANG VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, JAMMU. RANGE-2, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.111(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AALPN1549E DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. SMT. AMITA NARANG, RANGE-2, JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SH. ATUL PURI, CA DEPARTMENT BY:SH.R.L.CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10/06/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:13/06/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 2 THESE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANOT HER BY THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 21 .12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISI NTERPRETED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENT OF BUILDING AT MAYAPURI WHICH COULD NOT BE INHABITED. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.946,100 BEING THE LEASE MONEY P AID TO HSIDC WITHOUT WHICH THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE LET OUT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRU CTION OF PROPERTY AT RS.3,968,140 IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF T HE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON NOTIONAL IN COME OF RS.6,00,000/- FROM FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE BHARTAL W HEN THE DIRECTIONS OF STATUS QUO ISSUED BY THE COURT ARE IN FACT IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DO NOT JEOPARDIZE THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF RS.6,60 ,433/- ON BORROWED ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 3 FUNDS U/S 24(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEN T HE BANK STATEMENT FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATE TO HOME LOAN IN THE NAME OF SH. SUBASH CHANDER NARANG, HUSBAND OF THE ASSES SEE AND AMOUNT OF RS.6,60,433/- WAS WORKED OUT FROM THAT STATEMEN T FOR THE PERIOD 10.04.2008 TO 10.03.2009. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,11,321/- ON AC COUNT OF TAXES PAID TO LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON FO R ITS ALLOWANCE. 4. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT A NO.43(ASR)/2013. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFO RE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS PROPERTY A-7 AT MAYAPURI, NEW DELHI, WHICH IS A COM MERCIAL COMPLEX IS IN FACT A 100 SQ. YARD PLOT WITH A SHED AND STATED TO BE IN A DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND BEING IN SUCH A CONDITION, IT WAS CLA IMED THAT THAT IT WAS NOT LET OUT SINCE THE REPAIR WORK ALSO COULD NOT BE CAR RIED OUT DUE TO SOME PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBOURS. THE PLOT WAS RENOVATED AND ACCORDINGLY WAS LET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THE AO ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIMS MADE WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORT UNITIES AND ACCORDINGLY A.L.V. OF THE SAID COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED ON ESTIMATED BASIS ACCORDING TO LOCATION, SIZE AND NAT URE OF THE ASSET. THE ALV ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 4 OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN AT RS.50,000/- PER MONTH I.E. RS. 6 LACS PER ANNUM AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 5.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 5.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 137 PAGES. IN FACT PAGES 1 TO 26 ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND THE LD. CIT(A). FROM PAGE 27 TO 137 ARE CERTAIN PAPERS HAVING NO INDEX O R ANY CERTIFICATE WHETHER THESE PAPERS WERE PLACED OR FILED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PAPERS ATTACHED TO THE MEMOR ANDUM OF APPEAL AT PAGES 27 TO 137 ARE IGNORED. 5.3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS UNDER DISPUTE WITH THE NEIGHBOURS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER A ND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE LET OUT. THE DISPUTE WAS SORTED OUT IN THE FOLLOWIN G YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY PROPERTY WAS LET OUT AND RENTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED . THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAVING NOT BEEN EARNED DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, CA NNOT BE TAXED AS A.L.V UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DURING TH E IMPUGNED YEAR. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS PER ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, NO DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO WERE SUBMITTED, AS IS EVIDENT FR OM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. NO FURTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO A MATTER OF FACT. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE US IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FOR CHARGING INCOM E ON THE BASIS OF A.L.V. THUS, GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE C ASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PAYMENTS MADE TO MCD ON ACCOUN T OF CONVERSION CHARGES OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAID PAYMENT AS PROPERTY TAX, WHICH IN FACT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE AO AS CONVERSION CHARGES OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE SAME, WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS.10,57,421/- OUT OF RS .9,46,100/- WHICH IS PAYMENT TO HSIDC. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF RS.9,46,100/-. ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 6 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN FACT, THIS LEASE MONEY IS NOTHING B UT THE SHARE OF PROFIT BY THE GREATER LESSOR WITH THE LESSOR FROM THE PROPERTY WH O HAS PUT THIS PROPERTY ON RENT. HERE HSIDC IS THE GREATER LESSOR AND THE ASSE SSEE IS THE LESSOR. THIS IS NOT A TAX LEVIED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE TAX IS ALWAYS LEVIED BY AN ACT OF A STATUTE AND THE ASSESSEE DESPITE QUERY COULD NOT ES TABLISH UNDER WHAT STATUTE THE SUM OF RS.9,46,100/- HAS BEEN PAID IF IT IS TO BE CALLED AS TAX. THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE GIVEN AS A DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS, OUT OF RS.10,57,421/-, RS.9,4 6,100 HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. THUS, GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISS ED. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BRI EF FACTS AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE O F CLARITY AS UNDER: UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY : 2.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y .2007-08 THE CASE LAWS REFERRED FOR VALUATION BY THEN A.O. DCIT CIRCLE-2, JAMMU VIDE HIS LETTER NO.DCIT/CIR.2/JMU/2009-10/834 DATE D 15.12.2009 AND THE VALUATION REPORT WAS RECEIVED VIDE NO. VAL/V.O./RTK/CG/09/2009/12 DATED 16.02.2010 IN WHI CH THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTR UCTION IN F.Y. 2008- 09 I.E. A.Y. 2009-10 AT RS.1,25,32,310/- AGAINST R S.1,15,81,920/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS STAGE, ONE OTHER ISSUE COMES INTO ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 7 PICTURE. AS PER LEASE DEED, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PR OVIDE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION OF 1000 KVA IN ADDITION TO AIR CONDITIO NING AND GENERATOR. A PERUSAL OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED IN RESPECT OF 334, UDYOG VIHAR-IV, GURGAON SHOWS THAT THE LESSOR-ASSE SSEE SHALL OBTAIN 1000 KW CONNECTION AND ALL EXPENSES WILL BE BORNED BY HER. THE CLAUSE OF THE LEASE DEED READS AS UNDER: THE LESSOR SHALL OBTAIN ELECTRICITY LOAD EQUIVALENT TO 1000 KW FROM THE CONCERNED ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT. ALL EXP ENSES SUCH AS SECURITY DEPOSIT, TRANSFORMER WITH NECESSARY ACCES SORIES, EATHING AND CABLES UPTO DG SET AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN T HIS REGARD SHALL BE BORNE BY THE LESSOR. LESSEE SHALL INSTALL THE ELEC TRIC CONTROL PANEL ON ITS OWN COST. THAT THE LESSOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PRO VIDE 500 KW ELECTRICITY LOAD WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE DATE OF POS SESSION AND BALANCE 500 KW WITHIN 120 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSSESSION OF THE LEASED PREMISES. NO SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED. NO SUCH SECURI TY DEPOSIT TO THE DHVBN APPEARS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN ABOVE VIDE LETTE R DATED 17.11.2011, THE RELEVANT QUERY IS AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 10.02.2009, IT H AS BEEN FOUND THAT THE LEASE STARTED FROM 16.07.2008. IN THE LEASE DE ED, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN FACILITIES SUCH AS ELE CTRICITY CONNECTION OF 1000 KW DG SET, AIR CONDITIONING OF THE BUILDING A ND LIFTS ETC. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE DETAILS OF THESE ALONGWITH VO UCHERS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ABOVE INVESTMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE FILED A WRITTEN REPLY WHEREIN HE STATED THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE B EEN INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION REPORT. THE REPLY IS QUOTED AS UNDER: AMENITIES INCLUDE POWER BACKUP, GENERATOR SET 50 K W, AIR CONDITIONER 225 TON AND PASSENGER-LIFTS. THE COST OF THESE AMENITIES PURCHASED WITHIN 2 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF POSSESS ION IS INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUE R. KINDLY REFER TO PAGE-1 OF ANNEXURE-1 TO THE VALUATION REPORT WHERE DETAILS OF EXTRA ITEMS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND INCLUDED IN THE GRAND TO TAL. ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 8 THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN RESPECT OF AIR CONDITIONERS AND GENERATOR SET BUT NO SUCH VALUATION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF HEAVY ELECTRIC CONNECTION ALAONGWITH TRANSFORMERS. NOT S ATISFIED WITH THE REPLY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO FILE A DETAI LED REPLY. THE QUERY RAISED BY LETTER DATED 13.12.2011 IS AS UNDER: AS PER THE LEASE DEED OF PROPERTY AT GURGAON, YOU H AD PROVIDED A 1000 KW CONNECTION AS PER REQUIREMENT OF THE LEASE DEED. THIS CONNECTION ANYWHERE COSTS APPROXIMATELY 25 LAKHS I NCLUDING A SECURITY OF RS.15,10,000/- PAYABLE TO DHVBN. NO SU CH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN YOUR RETURN OF INCOME. PLEASE EXP LAIN: IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPLY AS UNDE R:- IN LEASE DEED 1000 KW IS WRITTEN, BUT SANCTIONED AND INSTALLED LOAD IS 500 KW DETAILS OF EXPENSES: ELECTRIC CONNECTION CHARGES RS.10,10,000/- 19.07 .2008 ELECTRIC SECURITY RS.7,57,750/- 09.01.2009 ELECTRIC TRANSFORMS RS.2,00,000/- 24.07.2005 RS.6,50,000/- 12.09.2008 CABLE AND MISC. RS.4,00,000/- 15.01.2009 ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES DRAWN ON UNION BANK: THE VALUATION OFFICER IN HIS REPORT HAS INCLUDED O NLY TWO EXTRA ITEMS I.E. AIR CONDITIONING AND GENERATOR BUT HAS LEFT T HE EXTRA ITEMS OF 500 KVA CONNECTION. SO INVESTMENT OF RS.30,17,750/- I N GETTING ELECTRIC CONNECTION AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION REPORT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION DURING THE YEAR AS WORKED OUT BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IS AMENDED AS UNDER: COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS ESTIMATED BY THE V. O. RS. 1,25,32,310/- ADD: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE DURING THE YEAR AN ACCOUNT OF 500 KVA CONNECTION RS.30,17,750/- COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN AY 2009-10 RS.1,55,50,06 0/- AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COST OF CONSTR UCTION AT RS.1,15,81,920/- WHICH INCLUDES EXPENSES ON ACCOUN T OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION. THIS LEAVES A DIFFERENCE OF RS.39,68,1 40/- BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WORKED OUT ABOVE AND THE COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO ISSUES IST ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 9 SELF SUPERVISION DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SECOND RE GARDING 500 KVA ELECTRIC CONNECTION. IN REGARD TO FIRST ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPLY ON 15.11.2001 STATING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN 10% SO NO ADVERSE VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AS CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN DONE UNDER PERSONAL SUPERVISIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A WRITTEN R EPLY ON 07.12.2011 IN WHICH HE HAS FILED ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM SH. SANDEEP KOHLI (ARCHITECT) IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION DONE UNDER SELF SUPERVISION. NO OTHER EVIDENCE SUCH AS BILLS OF PU RCHASE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR ANY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTE D UNDER SELF SUPERVISION. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER SELF SUPERVISION HAS NOT BEEN SU BSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE FAIL . THE BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN NCR REGION WHERE THE RATES OF ALL ITEMS INCLUDING LABOUR CHARGES ARE MUCH MORE THAN A PLACE LIKE JAM MU. HENCE, THE CASES QUOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL DO NOT APPLY TO TH E CASES OF VALUATION IN NCR REGION PARTICULAR DUE TO THE FACT THAT NO E VIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CONSTRUCTION OF SELF SUPERVISION HAS BEEN FILE D AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR EVEN AT THE STAGE OF VALUATION BY THE V.O . SO MUCH SO, THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS ADDED 2% TO THE COST OF CONS TRUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDERS EFFORTS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT W AS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH A BUILDER. HENCE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE REGARDING SELF SUPERVISION FAILS. 2.3. AS REGARDS, 2 ND ISSUE, THE ASSESSEES REPLY IS AS UNDER: DVO VISITED THE PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION ON 15.01. 2010 AND VALUED THE PROPERTY AS PER HIS VALUATION STANDARDS, VALUATION INCLUDES ALL FINDINGS AND INSTALLATIONS. IF HE HAS NOT TAKEN CERTAIN ELECTRICAL FITTING ETC. IN HIS REPORT AS YOU POINTED OUT, MEAN S THAT HIS REPORT IS NOT RELIABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ALL TH E EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND ALL THE PAYMENT HA VE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE VALUE AS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN HER BALANCE SHEET MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED. I AM ENCLOSING P.C. O F THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE USED FOR MAKING DRAFTS. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS INC LUDED ALL FINDINGS AND INSTALLATIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE VALUATION REPOR T ITSELF PROVES THAT ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 10 THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. THIS EXTRA ITEM WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT BY THE V.O. AND IT IS THE DUTY O F THE A.O. TO CONSIDER ALL FACTS INCLUDING EXTRA ITEMS LEFT BY THE V.O. IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE A.O. TO AMEND THE VALUATION REPORT AS PER BASI C FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECOND CONTENTION THAT VALUATION REPORT IS NOT RELIABLE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC OBJECTION S. NO PERVERSITY OR ABNORMALITY IN THE VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN POINTE D OUT. SIMPLY OMISSION OF ONE EXTRA ITEM DOES NOT MAKE THE REPORT UNRELIABLE. HENCE, BOTH THE ARGUMENTS FAIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 39,68,140/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT GURGAON. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.39,68,140/- IS MADE IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT DISCUSSED ABOVE. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE DVO HAS ES TIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,25,32,310/- AS AGAINST RS.1,15,81, 920/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT UNDER DISPUTE THAT THE DVO HAS NOT INCLUDED RS.30,17,750/- BEING THE COST OF GENERATOR IN HIS R EPORT WHICH MAKES THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AT RS.1,55,50,060/-. IF THE COST O F GENERATOR IS REDUCED FROM THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE VARIAT ION IS MORE THAN 30% FROM THE COST DECLARED TO THE TOTAL VALUATION AS PER DVO INCLUDING THE COST OF GENERATOR. AS REGARDS THE BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF CON STRUCTION MATERIAL, NO OTHER EVIDENCE FOR MAKING PAYMENT WAS FILED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CERTIFICATE OF THE ARCHITECT THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER SELF SUPERVISION CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY VALID EV IDENCE.ESPECIALLY WHEN ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 11 THE DVO HAS ADDED 2% TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDERS EFFORTS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH A BUILDER AND THERE WAS NO SELF SUPERVISION. THE CERTIFICATE OF T HE ARCHITECT THAT THE BUILDING WAS UNDER SELF SUPERVISION, AS MENTIONED H EREINABOVE, ACCORDINGLY IS REJECTED AND CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM S ELF SUPERVISION CHARGES @ 10%, AS PER OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ALSO NOT UNDER DISPUTE. THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT FOR THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM AND THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED AND SUCH REPORT IS NOT ON RECOR D BEFORE US. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO HAS BEEN LEF T WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ADD THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.39,68,140/- BEING THE D IFFERENCE OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.1,55,50,060/- AND RS.1,15,81,920/- . ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT A NO.111(ASR)/2012. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE O WNS FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE BHARTAL, NEW DELHI WHICH IS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE AS SESSEE AND HIS BROTHER- IN-LAW, WHICH INCLUDED THE ALV AT RS.6,00,000/- PER ANNUM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS SUBMITTED, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION FOR THE REASONS THAT THE PROPERTY IS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND CANNOT BE LET OUT AND ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 12 THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASON FOR KEEPING THE SAID PROPERTY VACANT WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR THE REASONS WAS SUBJECT TO TH E ORDER OF THE COURT AND CANNOT BE LET OUT WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE LET OUT PROPERTY AT UDHYOG VIHAR WAS CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF M S. AMITA NARANG, SH. SUBASH NARANG (HUSBAND) AND SH. DHRUVA NARANG (SON) TO INCREASE THE ELIGIBILITY OF LOAN. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A DIREC T NEXUS THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION O F SAID PROPERTY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE MONEY BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A HOME LOAN IN THE NAME OF SH. SUBASH NARANG AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWE D RS.6,60,433/- BEING THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL. 16.1. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BEING THE LOA N TAKEN IN THREE NAMES BUT UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY I N ITS ENTIRETY. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN IN JOINT ITA NO.43(ASR)/2013 ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 13 NAME AND THE ENTIRE LOAN WAS INVESTED IN THE CONST RUCTION OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, INTEREST ON THE SAID LOAN IS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION AS DIRECT NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THUS, GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.43(ASR)/2013 AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.111(ASR)/2013 ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13TH J UNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13TH JUNE, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SMT. AMITA NARANG, JAMMU. 2. THE ADDL. CIT, R-II/DCIT, R-II, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.