Smt. Poonam Devi, V. ACIT,

ITA 96/RAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0350 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: M K CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CIRCUIT BENCH : RANCHI [BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM AND GEORGE M ATHAN, JM] ITA NO. 96/RAN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SMT. POONAM DEVI, W/O. SHRI DINESHWAR SAHU, PANDITJEE ROAD, HAZARIBAG, PAN AFBPD9990A VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, HAZARIBAG (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S HRI M. K. CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. RAKSHIT, DR DATE OF HEARING: 26-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-10-2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR IN APPEAL NO.256/JSR/200 7-08 DATED 31- 03-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. SHRI M. K. CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATES REPRESENTED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AWIJIT RAKSHIT, LEARNED DR REPRES ENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHE HAD CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE ALONG WI TH HER HUSBAND AT HAZARIBAG. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID PROPER TY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER [DVO] WHO HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.30,90,800/-. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT THE ITA NO.96/RAN/2013 (AYS 2005-06) 2 ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.15,40,000/- TILL FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.30,90,800/- RE PRESENTING THE DVOS VALUATION OF THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAD DIRECTED THAT AS THE VALUATION REPORT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM THE REGISTERED VALUER MR. P. K. SINHA, THE CONSTRUCTION WORK HAD STARTED IN 1994 AND THE GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WAS DONE UP TO 2004 AND THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE GROUND, FIRST, SECOND AND THIR D FLOORS WAS FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,40,000/-, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DIRECTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIOUS YEARS DURING WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE. IT WA S A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.15,40,000/- . CONSEQUENTLY, THE BALANCE OF RS.15,50,000/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE DVO HAD APPLIED CPWD RAT ES WHEREAS IT WAS ONLY THE PWD RATES THAT WERE TO BE APPLIED. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAJ KUMAR REPORTED IN 182 ITR 436 AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS H ARCHAND PALACE (2004) 269 ITR 251. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AS PWD RATES HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED; THE VALUATION AS MADE BY THE DVO WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CPWD RATES DID NOT APPLY TO HAZARIBAG. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO.96/RAN/2013 (AYS 2005-06) 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DVO HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY BY APPLYING CPWD RA TES AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT CPWD RATES DO NOT APPLY TO HAZARIBAG, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE D IFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY STANDS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE C LOSE OF HEARING ON 26-10-2015. SD/- SD/- ( N .S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 26.10.15 LK DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ITA NO.96/RAN/2013 (AYS 2005-06) 4 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.10.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.10.2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 26.10.2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 26.10.2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 26,.10.2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.10.2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 26.10.2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER