Jagannath Ramachandra Jamadar, Bidar V. ITO, Bidar

ITA 515/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8545 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 515 TO 517/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2009-10 SHRI JAGANNATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR, H.NO. 8-9-270, BHAVANI NIVAS, GURUNANAK COLONY, BIDAR 585 401. PAN: AFOPJ 4531L VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BIDAR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI KEDARNATH SHETKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. BIJU, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO AYS 2007-08 TO 20 09-10 ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILD ING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OUR ATTENTION WAS I NVITED TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN THE CONSTR UCTION OF BUILDING WHICH ITA NOS. 515 TO 517/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO. THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DURING ALL T HE THREE YEARS AT RS. 83,42,900/- AGAINST THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE AT RS. 41,66,000/- (FOR AY 2007-08). THE AO HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE OBJECTION TO THE VALUATION RE PORT, HE RATHER FILED REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO TO FILE THE OBJECTIONS WITH RESP ECT TO DVOS REPORT. HE, HOWEVER, FILED REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO. 3. IT WAS ALSO CONTENTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING OF THE DVO BY FILING OBJECTION TO IT. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO POINT OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE VALUATION REPORT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE FALLACY IN THE VALUATION REPORT. SI NCE ALL THESE ARGUMENTS ARE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES ADJUDICATION BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO NOTICE D FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTION TO THE DVOS REPORT. THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS FILED REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT, BUT HE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE OBJECTIONS POINTING OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE DVOS REPORT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THESE RELEVANT INFORMATION, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES PROPER ADJUDICATION BY THE AO. WE ACCORDI NGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITA NOS. 515 TO 517/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO R EADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2017. / M S / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.