Dr.K.Venkatasubramanian, Sivakasi V. ITO, Virudhunagar

ITA 755/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 755/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 -2009) DR. K. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN, 72C, ULAVARSANTHAI ROAD, SIVAKASI. [PAN:ACNPV 3346H] ( %& /APPELLANT) VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(4), VIRUDHUNAGAR 626 001. ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2015 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2015 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, MADURAI, D ATED 31.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. . I.T.A.NO.755/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 01. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CONTRAR Y TO LAW WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANNAI CLINIC AT SIVAKASI AT 1,24,47,660/- AS AGAINST 75 LAKHS ADMITTED BY APPELLANT AND IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF 51,83,660/- AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUPPORTED BY CASE LAWS. 03. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT AT ALL CONSIDERING THE GROUND THAT WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS RECORDED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT ALL THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS R ELATING TO ANNAI CLINIC AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS WERE VERIFI ED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF REJECTION OF SUCH BOOKS, AND /OR THE APPROVED VALUERS REPORT FILED BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER OF VALUATION TO DVO . RELIANCE PLACED ON SC'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAR GAM CINEMA VS. CIT (2011) 197 TAXMAN 203(SC) AND OTHER DECISIONS WAS NOT ALL CONSIDERED. 04. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE PLEA THAT PWD RATES SHOULD B E ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF VALUATION OF A PROPERTY AT SIVAKASI W ITHOUT FOLLOWING THE BINDING NATURE OF JURISDICTION H.C. D ECISION IN THE CASE OF T.M.P.N.MURUGESAN VS. CIT (2013) 217 TAXMANN 40(MAD) BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE. 05. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT A LLOWING DISCOUNT FOR PERSONAL SUPERVISION, LESS CONSTRUCTIO N COST IN A TOWN LIKE SIVAKASI AND SPREAD OVER OF COST OF CONST RUCTION FOR 02 YEARS WITHOUT FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL S DECISION IN ITA NO.1175 & 1176/2012 A BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE . 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR ASSESSEE MADE AN ENDORSEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PRESSING GROUND NOS.1 TO 3. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GRO UNDS ARE DISMISSED HAS NOT PRESSED. I.T.A.NO.755/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: 4. THE NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGAR D TO APPLICATION OF STATE PWD RATE INSTEAD OF CPWD RATE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE AT SIVAKASI IS A MOFUSILL AREA, AS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.M.P.N. MURUGESAN VS. CIT (2013) 217 TAXMAN 40 (MAD), WHERE STATE PWD RATE IS APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY STATE PWD RATE SO AS ASCERTAIN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS ALLOWABILI TY OF SELF SUPERVISION CHARGES. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF CARRIED OUT SUPER VISION AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED BY THE DVO AND REASONABLE ALLOWANCE TO BE MADE TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION CHARGES. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A DOCTOR WOULD HA VE HAD NO TIME TO OVERSEE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND NO DEDUCTION TO WARDS SELF SUPERVISION IS TO BE GIVEN. I.T.A.NO.755/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE FACT THAT SELF SUPERVISION BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE DVO WHILE FURNISHING VALUATION R EPORT AND THE WORK WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR. HENCE, DE DUCTION AT THE RATE OF 5% IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON COST OF MAT ERIALS I.E. CEMENT, SAND, STEELS ETC. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDE RATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.755/MDS/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) V. DURGA RAO ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI. $% /DATED:29.05.2015. KV %& '( )( /COPY TO: 1. * APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. + ( )/CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. (,- . /DR 6. -/ 0 /GF. I.T.A.NO.755/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: