Avnish singhal, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 483/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3001 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RI TESH
• Assessee Lawyers: SL GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

1 ITA 483-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 483/JP/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09. SHRI AVNISH SINGHAL, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-96, GOLE MARKET, JAWAHAR NAGAR, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.L. GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : MS ANITA RITESH DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2013. ORDER PER B.R. JAIN, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26 .03.2013 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)- II, JAIPUR RAISES THE SOLITARY GROUND AS UNDER :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)- II, JAIPUR IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,450/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF CONSTRUCTION BY DVO. THE ESTIMATION BY DVO IS WITH IN RANGE OF 5% TO 6% FROM ACTUAL COST DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 4,35,210/- WHICH STOOD ASSESSED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 4,56,660/- BY MA KING AN ADDITION OF RS. 21,450/- 2 TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR THE PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2008-09 TOTAL AGGREGATING TO RS. 5 1,59,315/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICE R WHO ELUCIDATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 54,47,400/-. DURING THE RELEVA NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE COST OF INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 3,84,281 /- WHEREAS THE INVESTMENT FOR THIS PERIOD WAS ESTIMATED BY DVO AT RS. 4,05,731/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 21,450/- HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DISREGARDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SELF SUPERVISION AND MINOR DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATION REQUIRED TO BE I GNORED. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS NO EVI DENCE WAS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF REBATE REQUESTED ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTHING NEW STATED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE HER. 4. I HAVE HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT INTERNAL PAGE 3 PARA 2 ADMITS THAT DAILY VISIT T O THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT TOOK IT A SELF SUPER VISION OF CONSTRUCTION. NO GOOD REASONS HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THERETO NOR ASSESSEE IS SHOWN TO HAVE EMPLOYED ANY SUPERVISOR TO SUPERVISE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS WHEN THE ASSESSEE FACTUALLY AND REGULARLY HAD GONE TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, THE OB VIOUS PURPOSE IS SELF SUPERVISION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND THEREBY SAVED COST OF C ONSTRUCTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT WAS NEITHER PROPER NOR REASONABLE TO HAVE DISCARDED THE GENUINE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHO REQUESTED REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION . THE ADDITION MADE, THEREFORE, IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. I, ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 3 THE GROUND IN APPEAL, THEREFORE, STANDS ALLOWED AS ANNOUNCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 10.07.2013. SD/- ( B.R. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 10/07/2013. D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI AVNISH SINGHAL, JAIPUR.. THE ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 483 /JP/2013) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.