Moulir Kishore Chatterjee, Kolkata V. DCIT, C ircle- 51, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 904/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5681 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A C GAUNERIWALA
• Keywords: Valuation report; Non passing of speaking order; Set aside

Judgement Text

1 , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH C, KOLKATA () BEFORE , , , , , SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % / ITA NO . 904/KOL/2010 &' () / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (+, / APPELLANT ) MOULIR KISHORE CHATTERJEE, KOLKATA (PAN: ACTPC 4389H) - VERSUS- (-.+,/ RESPONDENT ) DCIT, CIRCLE-51, KOLKATA +, / 0 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.C.GAUNERIWALA -.+, / 0 # / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P.K.MISHRA #1 / ORDER ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, A.M . THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A)- XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 31.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROU NDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIO N OF RS.117067/- U/S. 69B, IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSEES BURDWAN HOUSE PROPERTY IGNORING ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ASSESSEES CHA RTERED ENGINEERS VALUATION REPORT ASSESSEES SUBMISSION EXPLAINING M ISTAKES AND DISCREPANCIES IN DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION REPORT, EST ABLISHING ARBITRARINESS OF THE SAID ADDITION. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HIS FINDING THAT T HE DVO HAS MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND T AKEN ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN C ONSIDERATION WHEREAS THE DVOS REPORT IS PATENTLY BASED ON ESTIMATES AND AVERAGES CONSTRARY TO BOOKS & RECORDS MAINTAINED FOR COST OF CONSTRUCT ION AND ANALYTICAL VALUATION REPORT OF ASSESSEES CHARTERED ENGINEER. THE CIT(A)S ORDER BEING A NON SPEAKING ORDER PASSED HURRIEDLY IGNORIN G THE VITAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE SUMMA RILY. 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSE L, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER IGNORING THE VITAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. HENCE, HE PRAY ED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE, DID NOT OBJECT AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE M ATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY AT BURDWAN IT IS ADMITTED T HAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESS EE HIMSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTI ON IN THAT PROPERTY, DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AT RS.3,77,495/- . THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE SAME AT RS.4,94,562/-. I HAVE PERUSE D THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEERING OBTAIN BY THE ASSESSEE , A COPY OF WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE ME, AND ALSO THE REPORT OF THE DVO. I FIND THAT THE DVO HAS MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION AND TAKEN ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY INTO CO NSIDERATION WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFOR E, IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,067/- HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.1,17,067/- IS CONFIRMED. 5.1 ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN A REASONING AS TO WHY THE DVOS VALUATION IS ACCEPTABLE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS CONTESTED THAT THE DVOS VALUATION IS O N THE BASIS OF SOME ESTIMATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T.ACT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE 3 THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. #1 2 3& 4 5 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2010 SD/- SD/- , , , , , DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 31.08.2010 #1 / -6 7#6(8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MOULIR KISHORE CHATTERJEE, CL-I, W-I, PURBACHAL, SA LT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA -700091. 2 DCIT, CIRCLE-51, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .6 -/ TRUE COPY, #1&3/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES MST(SR.P.S.)