Shri Vasudev Khurana, V. The DCIT, 4(1),

ITSSA 69/IND/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8523 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: TRIBHUVAN SACHDEVA
• Keywords: Gift; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : ACWPK7109A I.T(SS).A.NO.69/IND/2006 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1996 TO 17.11.2002 LATE VASUDEV KHURANA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. PUSHPA KHURANA 3, KATJU COLONY, INDORE PAN ACWPK 7109 A VS DY. CIT, 4(1), INDORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TRIBHUVAN SACHDEVA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 24.3.2006 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 158BC/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO UPHOLDIN G ADDITION FOR INVESTMENT IN FDR AS UNDER :- -: 2: - 2 RS.22,669/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHETNA ACHPAL, RS.22,669/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI ANURAG RS.23,159/- IN THE NAME OF KU. DURGA & RS. 68,797/ - SUCHITA. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI VASUDE O KHURANA, WHO HAS SINCE BEEN EXPIRED, HAD GIFTED IDB I BOND OF RS. 5300/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO EACH OF HI S THREE GRAND CHILDREN, ONE OF WHOM WAS MASTER ANURAG S/O L ATE SHRI B.K. ACHPAL. ON MATURITY OF THE SAME, FUNDS WERE AG AIN INVESTED IN FDR FOR RS. 10,000/-. THUS, THE FDR NO. A- 2126591 AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,669/- WAS THE MATURITY VALUE OF THIS FDR. SIMILARLY, LATE SHRI VASUDEO KHURANA HAD MADE FDR IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHETNA ACHPAL OUT OF RENEWA L OF OLDER FDR NO 1123651/102/97 DATED 2.8.1999, WHICH W AS DUE ON 2.8.2002, AT VALUE OF RS. 22,669/-. THUS, WE FOUND THAT SOURCE OF BOTH THE FDRS WERE DULY EXPLAINED AN D NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED WITH RESPECT TO FDR IN THE NA ME OF SMT. CHETNA ACHPAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,669/- AND MASTER ANURAG -: 3: - 3 S/O LATE B.K. ACHPAL 1999, AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,669/ -. HOWEVER, FDR IN THE NAME OF KU. DURGA & SUCHITA AMO UNTING TO RS. 23,159/- COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED SATISFACTORI LY, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS CORRECTLY MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR RETAINING AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR INTERIOR DECORATION. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED ON INTERIOR DECORATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS F URNISHED VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED GOVERNMENT VALUE R, SHRI AJAD JAIN AND ASSOCIATES. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT H AS GOT THE SAME VALUE BY ANOTHER REGISTERED VALUER RS. KIR AN SHINDE, WHO HAD ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT RS. 4,27,00 0/-. DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 97,000/-. BY THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) RETAINED AD HOC ADDITION OF R S. 50,000/-, WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE US. WITH REGARD TO THE VALUATION GOT DONE BY THE ASSESS EE FROM REGISTERED GOVERNMENT VALUER, WE FOUND THAT HE HAS -: 4: - 4 CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGA RD TO THE YEAR IN WHICH INTERIOR WORK HAVING BEEN DONE. THE A SSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 14.11.2002 VIDE QUESTION NO.8, HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED AS TO WHAT TIME THE INTERIOR DEC ORATION WAS GOT DONE; IN REPLY, HE STATED THAT IT WAS 2 2-1/2 YEAR BACK. THUS, THE WORK WAS GOT DONE IN THE YEAR 2000. BY CO NSIDERING THIS, THE REGD. VALUER HAD MADE DEDUCTION @` 17 % T OWARDS COST AS ON FOCAL POINT, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OF THE DEPARTMENT. VALUATION OF I NTERIOR IS JUST BEING ESTIMATION AND NO FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE VALUATION GOT DONE FROM A REGISTERED GOVERNMENT VALUER BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE AD HOC ADDITION RETAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN RESPECT OF INTERIOR WORK, WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 3,33,000/- ON THE BASIS OF VALUATIO N REPORT OF REGISTERED GOVERNMENT VALUER, SHRI AJAD JAIN AND AS SOCIATES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDIT ION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF INTERIOR DECORATION WORK D ONE BY THE ASSESSEE. -: 5: - 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. CPU* 992