Y.Jithin Kumar, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 506/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 50622514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.503 TO 506 & 507 & 508/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 & 2004-05 & 2 005-06 Y. JITHIN KUMAR HYDERABAD VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 24.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH THESE SIX APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERAB AD DATED 27.03.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A READ WI TH SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 31.12.2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE YEARS WHICH ARE COMMON, OUT OF WHICH GROUND S 2 AND 3 PERTAIN TO ISSUE OF CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAVING PASS ED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. JCIT AND SO THE SAM E ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, CIT CANNOT INVOKE SECTION 26 3 ON THAT ORDER. THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS AND ACCORDINGLY, THESE ARE TREATED AS WIT HDRAWN. GROUND NO.4 WHICH IS MATERIAL FOR THE ISSUE IS AS U NDER : 2 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER G IVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF ITAT, THAT IS PASSED AFTER D UE DELIBERATIONS ON MERE GROUND THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT ACTED ON THE COMMENTS OF THE DVO THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING IN THE COMMENTS OF THE DVO EXCEPT REITERATING THE SAME VAL UES, WHEN THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS TO ADOPT MAR KET VALUES AFTER REJECTING THE VALUES ADOPTED BY THE DV O IN THE REPORT, THEREBY TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE ON E THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS THE MANAGING DIRECT OR OF M/S. KALYANI GARDAU STEELS LTD. ASSESSEE FILED RETU RNS OF INCOME ORIGINALLY AND CONSEQUENT TO PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 132, SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN RE-ASSESSED. ON E OF THE ISSUES IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THE VALUATIO N OF THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFERRED IT TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (VALUATION CELL) WHI CH VALUED THE BUILDING ADOPTING CPWD RATES. AGGRIEVED, ASSESS EE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED REDUCTION OF 1 5% TOWARDS ADOPTION OF CPWD RATES BY VALUATION CELL AND A FURT HER 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION. THIS ORDER WAS CONTEST ED BEFORE THE ITAT BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE REVENUE CONTESTED THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE CON TESTED THE VALUES ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER ON CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT PRESCRIBED IN THE CPWD MANUAL. THE ITAT VID E ITS ORDER DATED 26.03.2009 IN ITA.NO. 962 TO 968/HYD/20 08 AND ITA.NO.1123 TO 1129/HYD/2008 DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEAL WHILE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLO WED. THE ASSESSEE CAME UP IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKI NG CLARIFICATIONS ON THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE ITAT AND THE ITAT VIDE MA.NO. 70 TO 72/HYD/2009 DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2009 MODIFIED THE SAME WITH A DIRECTION TO A.O. TO DETER MINE THE 3 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO THE MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO A SSESSEE. 4. CONSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE, A.O. PASSED ORDERS DAT ED 31.12.2010. IN THESE PROCEEDINGS A.O. REFERRED THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 30.11.2010 WITH A REQUEST TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENG INEER (VALUATION), TO FURNISH COMMENTS ON OR BEFORE 31.12 .2010 AS THE APPELLANTS ARE TO BE GIVEN AFFIDAVIT BY THAT TI ME. SINCE NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE A.O. AND AS THE ISSUE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, A.O. HIMSELF UNDERTOOK THE EXE RCISE OF DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUES KEEPING THE VALUATION OFFICERS PRICES AND ASSESSEES QUOTATIONS SUBMITTED AND DETE RMINED THE PRICE THEREBY, QUANTIFYING THE RELIEF. IN DOING THAT, A.O. BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISCUSS ING THE QUOTATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF MARK ET VALUES, ADOPTED CERTAIN VALUES AS AGAINST VALUATION OFFICER S RATES. AND REDUCED THE VALUATION OF CERTAIN ITEMS THEREBY ARRIVING AT VALUATION FROM RS.79,97,642/- TO RS.51,29,346/-. IN EFFECT AO REDUCED THE VALUATION BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,68,296/ -. SINCE LD. CIT(A) ALREADY GAVE RELIEF OF 15% REBATE ON CPW D VALUES AND 10% REBATE FOR SELF-SUPERVISION, THE NET REDUCT ION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.21,51,222/-. THIS RELIEF WAS PROPO RTIONATELY WORKED-OUT IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE B ASIS OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE S AME PROPORTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELIEF IN RESPECTIVE A SSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. AS UNDER : 4 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD SL.NO. A.Y. PROPORTIONATE PERCENTAGE RELIEF WORKED OUT PROPORTIONATELY (IN RS.) 1. 1999-00 14.58% 3,13,648 2. 2000-01 25% 5,37,805 3. 2001-02 25% 5,37,805 4. 2002-03 16.66% 3,58,393 5. 2003-04 NIL NIL 6. 2004-05 6.25% 1,34,451 7. 2005-06 12.5% 2,68,902 ACCORDINGLY, A.O. PASSED THE ORDERS IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 5. THE LD. CIT-II, HYDERABAD AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A.O. HAS ERRED IN GIVI NG RELIEF RELYING ON THE QUOTATIONS WHICH ARE NOT PLACED EARL IER AND NOT WAITING FOR REMARKS OF VALUATION OFFICER. HE HELD THAT ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. CIT IS AS UNDER : IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE QUOTATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLES AND BATH TUBS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF ITAT AGAINST MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE ABOVE MENTIONED INFORMATION IN AL L THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS I.E. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE TH E ITA T. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE DVO AT THE TIME OF VAL UATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ITAT HAS CLEARLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THERE IS NO CASE FOR FRESH VALUATION OF PROPERTY OR ADDITIONAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WHEN THE DETAILS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REFERRED TO THE DVO FOR HIS COUNT ER COMMENTS AND THE SAME WAS PENDING, THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE DVO'S VALUATION REPORT. THEREFORE, PASSING OF ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A R.W.S.254 OF THE IT ACT , 1961 D TD.31.12.2010 ACCEPTING THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE 5 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE AO WHICH WER E NOT CLAIMED EARLIER AND' ALLOWING THE DEDUCTIONS BY RE- ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF EXTRA ITEMS IS FOUND TO BE NOT IN ORDE R. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. YOU ARE, THEREFORE REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY TH E ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A R.W.S.254 DATED 31.12.2010 SHOULD NOT BE REVISED / SET ASIDE. FOR THIS PURPOSE YOUR CASE IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 04-02-2013 AT 11:45 AM AT ROOM NO.811, 8 TH FLOOR, A-BLOCK, I.T.TOWERS, A. C. GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. YOU MAY ALSO PRODUCE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF YOUR C LAIM. 6. IN REPLY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS UNDER : A) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER TO LOOK INTO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 142. THE MARKET VALUES OF CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE VALU ATION REPORT OF THE DVO WERE NOT AS PER THE CPWD GUIDELIN E VALUES, BUT THEY WERE MARKET VALUES WHICH WERE ADOPTED WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ON SUCH AN OBJECTION, TH E DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE ITAT TO ADOPT TH E MARKET VALUES. THE ITAT HAS NOT DIRECTED THE AO TO REFER TO THE DVO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND HE NEED NO T WAIT FOR THE DVO'S REPORT AND IT IS NOT A FATAL MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (B) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVALID AS IT WAS PASSED WITHOUT OBTAINI NG THE APPROVAL OF THE JCIT U/S 153D OF THE IT ACT. AN INV ALID ORDER CANNOT BE REVISED TO MAKE IT A FRESH VALID OR DER. (C) THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO WAIT FOR THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN MATERIAL FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE PROCEEDINGS TO GIVE EFFEC T TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO. T HE DVO ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE OF CERTAIN ITEMS WITHO UT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS OBJECTED AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE CORRECT MARKE T 6 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD VALUE AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE QUOTATIONS WERE OBTAINED AND WERE FILED AND NO SUCH QUOTATIONS WERE WITH THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE QUOTATIONS WERE OBTAINED T O GIVE EFFECT TO THE ITAT'S DIRECTIONS. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TO BU Y PEACE, ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER WAS ACCEPTED AND NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED. 6.1. AFTER PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO DATED 06.03.2013 TO THE ASSESSEE AND OBTAINING THE SUBMISSIONS FROM ASSESSEE, LD. CIT WAS OF THE OPINI ON THAT ORDER OF THE CIT WAS ERRONEOUS AND ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE SAME WITH A DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT STRICTLY BY ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. HIS FINAL CONCLUSIONS IN PARA 8 ARE AS UNDER : 8. . . . . . I AM CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT ADE QUATE TIME IS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE VALUATION OFFICER IN HIS LETTER DATED 06-03-2013. K EEPING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN MIND, THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DTD.31-12-2010 IS HEREBY SET ASID E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DIR ECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT STRICTLY BY ADHERING TO THE PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE BY FURNISHING A COPY OF THE DVO LETTER DTD.06-03-20 13 AND DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DIREC TED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.153A R.W.S 254 DTD.31/12/2010 IS HEREB Y SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DETE RMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY KEEPING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN MIND. 7. AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO E RROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND A.O. HAS GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE QUOTATIONS WERE OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ITAT ALSO WHICH HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE ON SOME OF THE ITEMS WHOSE PRICES WERE ADOPTED AT HIGHER VALUE, WH ICH WERE 7 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD MATTER OF CONTENTION BEFORE THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. SINCE THE REPLY FROM THE VALUATION OFFICER ITSELF W AS NOT FORTHCOMING BY THAT TIME ORDERS ARE TO BE PASSED, T HE A.O. HAS UNDERTOOK EXERCISE OF EVALUATION OF THE PRICES AND ADOPTED THE VALUE AS DISCUSSED IN PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. SINCE THE A.O. HAS ALREADY EXPRESSED HIS OPINION WH ILE PASSING THE ORDER, REVISING THE ORDER BY THE CIT IS NOT COR RECT AND HAS RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 295 IT R 282. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A.O. HAS GIVEN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE ALSO HAVING ACCEPTED THE ORDERS, THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE ON THAT ISSUE AND DIRECTION O F THE CIT TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE CO PY OF THE DVO REPLY DATED 06.03.2013 IS INFRUCTUOUS AS THAT R EPORT CAME AFTER THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT TWIN CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR INVOKING THE JURI SDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 DOES NOT SATISFY IN THIS CASE AS THE ORDER IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. PR INCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA LBAR INDUSTRIES LTD 243 ITR 287 WILL EQUALLY APPLY. THER EFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 IS BAD IN LAW. 8. LEARNED D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, THE A.O. HAS T AKEN RELIANCE ON THE QUOTATIONS OBTAINED FROM TWO PARTIE S I.E., ONE FROM STONE WORLD FOR MARBLE QUOTATION AND ANOTHER F ROM M/S. VALUATION LINE TRADE PVT. LTD. FOR BATH TUB VALUATI ON AND THESE QUOTATIONS OBTAINED MUCH LATER AND THERE IS NO BASI S FOR ADOPTING THE VALUES BY THE A.O. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE CIT, A.O. HAS NOT CAUSED ANY ENQUIRIES TO DETERMINE THE 8 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD MARKET VALUE AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT AND THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS CORRECT IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECT ION 263. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE FAC T THAT THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PRICES ADOPTED FOR THE ITEMS USE D IN THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF MARKET VALUE OF THOSE YEARS, WHEN THERE ARE NO FIXED QUOTATIONS FROM THE CPWD. ACCORD INGLY, THE PRICES OF WHITE MARBLE, ITALIAN MARBLE, MARBLE SLAB S CLADDING, BATH TUB ETC., WERE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. THE ORDER O F THE A.O. IN DETERMINING THESE VALUES FOR THE SAKE OF RECORD IS AS UNDER : PARTICULARS RATE & AMOUNT AS PER AS PER ASSESSEE'S VALUE ADOPTED VALUATION CONTENTION THE (AS DISCUSSED) REPORT RATE & AMT. ITEM OF WORK QTY RATE/ AMT. RATE/ AMT. RATE/ AMT. SQ. M SQ.M SQ.M MARBLE TILE FLOORING 150 2517 377550 84 12600 2517 377550 MARBLE TILE FLOORING (DESIGN 64 1495 95680 84 5376 64 95680. PATTERN SMALL) MARBLE SLABS (PURE WHITE ITALIAN) 486 4932 2396952 2000 972000 3000 1458000 MARBLE SLABS (ADANGA) 166 1231 204346 571 94786 1231 204346 ITALIAN MARBLE (SLAB) 118 5570 657260 2000 236000 3000 354000 GRANITE TILE FLOORING 28 1946 54488 1500 42000 1946 54488 SCREEN PRINTED TILE DADO 90 1200 108000 475 42750 1200 108000 MARBLE SLAB CLADDING 37 4932 182484 2000 74000 3000 111000 POLISHED GRANITE TILE IN FRON T 145 2000 2()000O 1500 217500 2000 290000 GRANITE SLAB 26 4000 104000 1500 39000 2000 52000 FALSE CEILING WITH POP LIGHTS WITH STAINED GLASS 914 2000 1828000 325 297050 1000 914000 BATH TUBS 3 50000 150000 35000 105000 35000 105000 RICH & SUPERIOR W/S AND S/I FITTINGS 5 50000 250000 12000 60000 50000 250000 EXTRA FOR RICHER FITTINGS POWER PLUGS, TV, TELEPHONE AND LIGHTS 6% OF BUILDING COST 392882 392882 6% OF BUILDING COST 392882 EXTRA FOR 1 ST CLASS TEAK WOOD WINDOWS AND DOORS WITH BRASS FITTINGS CONSIDER 25% OF PLINTH AREA 302 3000 906000 1800 543600 2500 362400 TOTAL 7997642 2483612 5129346 9 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD 10. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILED ORDER OF THE A.O. IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS NO T SEND THE COMMENTS AND THE ORDER WAS GETTING TIME BARRED BY 31.12.2010. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO BASIS THE VALUATION ON ESTIMATION. NO DOUBT, A.O. I S NOT FULLY QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE THE VALUES BUT THE COMMENTS FROM THE DVO IN SPITE OF SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR BEFORE 31.1 2.2010 WAS NOT FORTHCOMING. THEREFORE, A.O. HAS NO OPTION THAN TO RELY ON THE VALUES AS ADOPTED BY THE DVO, OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, QUOTATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S UPPORT AND DETERMINE THE VALUE. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE VALUES ADOPTED, THE A.O. HAS NEITHER ACCEPTED THE QUOTATIONS FROM S TONE WORTH NOR FULLY RELIED ON THE VALUATION REPORT. AS SEEN F ROM THE TABLE MOST OF THE PRICES ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER WERE SAME EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF MARBLE SLABS, PURE WHITE ITAL IAN, ITALIAN MARBLE, MARBLE SLABS CLADDING AND GRANITE SLABS. TH ERE WAS SLIGHT REDUCTION IN THE VALUES FOR THE TEAK WOOD WI NDOWS. EVEN WITH REFERENCE TO BOTH TUBS THE QUOTATIONS RELIED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.30,000/- TO RS.32,000/- WHEREAS, TH E A.O. ADOPTED RS.35,000/- AS AGAINST RS.50,000/- ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. THIS INDICATE THAT A.O. HAS CONS CIOUSLY EXAMINED EACH OF THE ITEMS AND DETERMINED THE VALUE S AFTER DUE EXAMINATION. HE EXPRESSED OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AND ANY OPINION BY THE CIT WOULD BE A CHANGE OF OPINION. 11. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIT DIRECTS THE A.O. TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING COPY OF THE DVO LETTER DATED 06.03.2013 AND DETERMINE THE MARKE T VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT. AS STATED EARLIER THE COMMENTS OF DVO CAME MUCH LATER. HAD AO WAITED FOR THE 10 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD SAME ORDERS COULD HAVE BARRED BY TIME. THEN AO HAS NO OPTION THAN TO COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE WAY HE DID. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT. IT WAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATI NG THE ISSUE IN THE FIRST APPEAL AS UNDER: IN ANY CASE, WHILE ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION OF HOUSE PROPERTIES, THERE WILL BE DIFFERENCE OF OPINI ON AND THE VALUE ESTIMATED WOULD BE APROXIMATE FIGURE ONLY. THIS OPINION WAS ALREADY CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. THE REFORE, EVEN IF AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AG AIN, THE A.O. HAS TO ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE AS ON THAT DA TE AS THERE WILL BE NO WAY OF EXAMINING THE ACTUAL VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO SET ASIDE AG AIN TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AND ESTIMATE THE VALUES AGAIN. SINCE, A.O. HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THE SAME CONSIDERING TH E DVOS ORIGINAL REPORT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO FURT HER PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS. AS SEE N FROM THE COMMENTS OF THE DVO ALSO HE DID NOT VARY FROM THE E ARLIER REPORT. THEREFORE, ULTIMATELY, ASSESSING OFFICERS ADOPTION OF VALUES WOULD DEPEND ON THE ORIGINAL VALUES ADOPTED BY THE DVO AND THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO D ETERMINE THE MARKET VALUES. SINCE THE SAME EXERCISE WAS UNDE RTAKEN BY THE A.O. WE APPROVE THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT P ASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. 11 ITA.NO.503 TO 508/HYD/2013 MR. Y. JITHIN KUMAR, HYDERABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02.2 014. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. Y. JITIN KUMAR, PLOT NO.321, MLAS & MPS COLONY, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. C/O. MR. K. VASANTKUMAR & MR. AV RAG HURAM, ADVOCATES, 610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 1. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE 2 (1), HYDERABAD 3. CIT, HYDERABAD 4. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD.