M/s Islamic Academy of Education, V. ACIT,

ITA 64/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5389 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 69; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH AT MANGAL URU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTA N T MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANS H U SRIVASTAVA, JUDIC I AL MEMBER ITA NO S . 64 TO 66/BANG/2014 (ASS ESSMENT Y EAR S : 2004 - 05, 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 ) ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION , NITHYANANDA NAGAR, P.O. DERALKATTE, MANGAL URU - 575 018 . VS. ... APPELLANT ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 1 (1) , MANGALURU. ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.DINESH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT : SHRI R.N.SIDDAPPAJI, ADDL.CIT & SHRI S.SREENIVASAN, DCIT (DRS) DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 /0 5 /2017 O R D E R & PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE - TRUST DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MYSORE, DATED 15/10/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT][HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] BASED ON ITA NOS.64 TO 66/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 DVO S REPORT IN RESPECT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS. THE IMPUGNE D ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON BLE CIT U/S 263 DATED 23/03/2010 T O MAKE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE I N COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE DVO REPORT. THIS ISSUE WAS NOT OPEN F OR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE AO. IT IS BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT IN THE ORDER U/S 263 AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT( A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. 3. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S.JYOTHIPRAKASH VS. ADDL.CIT IN ITA NO.460/2010 DATED 07/06/2016 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IN THAT CASE, THE HON BLE HIGH COURFT FELT THAT NO ADDITION U/S 69 CAN BE MADE WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HAS FLOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 R D M A Y , 201 7 S D / - S D / - (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BENGALURU. DATE: 0 3 / 0 5 /2017 SRINIVASULU, SR. PS ITA NOS.64 TO 66/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) 4) CIT, 5) DR ITAT, BANGALORE, 6) GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE