Varsha Agrawal, Bhopal V. The ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITSSA 7/Ind/2020

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Smt. Tara Devi Agrawal and Smt. Varsha Agarwal against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, which arose from the assessment orders under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. The primary contention was regarding the jurisdiction and validity of the assessments made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during a search operation. The Tribunal examined whether the additions made were justified and whether the reference to the DVO for valuation of the constructed property was lawful. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents and judicial interpretations emphasizing the necessity of incriminating material for making additions under Section 153A in non-abated assessment years.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122622 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2020
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills, CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, Pr. CIT and ors. Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, Prop. Ferns \'N\' Patels and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Valuation report; Validity of assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 143(3); 153A; 69B; 69A; 13; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.01 to 04/Ind/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Smt. Tara Devi Agrawal C/o M/s. Agarwal Jewellers, Chowk, Bhopal Vs ACIT Central-2, Bhopal [PAN No. : ADJPA5134F] अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent) ITA Nos.05 to 08/Ind/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 Smt. Varsha Agarwal C/o M/s. Agarwal Jewellers, Chowk, Bhopal Vs ACIT Central-2, Bhopal [PAN No. : ADJPA4697F] अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Nisha Lohoti, C.A. & Shri Vijay Bansal Respondent by : Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing: 07.12.2022 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 11.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals are filed by the above two assessees as against the orders dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal arising against the Assessment Orders passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Smt. Tara Devi Agrawal and Smt. Varsha Agrawal are the mother in law and daughter in law and ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 2 they are the co-owners of a residential house constructed at Shymala Hills. Since the common grounds and identical facts are involved in both the cases the same are disposed by this common order. ITA Nos. 01 to 04/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15):- 2. The brief facts of the case is the assessee is a partner in the firm of M/s. Shashimohan Jaimohan, Bhopal. There was a search action under Section 132 of the Act conducted in the residential premises of the assessee as well as the business concerns of “Agrawal Jewellers Group” on 17.11.2016. Pursuant to the search notices under Section 153A was issued on the assessee and in response the assessee filed her Return of Income as follows: Assessment Years Date of filing of return u/s 139(1) Returned income (In Rs.) Date of filing of return by the assessee against notice u/s 153A Income Declared in Return u/s 153A (In Rs.) Additional income offered by the assessee (In Rs.) 2011-12 Not Filed Not Filed 16.04.2018 5,07,760/- 5,07,760/- 2012-13 Not Filed Not Filed 16.04.2018 3,55,175/- 3,55,175/- 2013-14 Not Filed Not Filed 16.04.2018 4,41,000/- 4,41,000/- 2014-15 12.07.2014 7,76,163/- 16.04.2018 7,76,163/- NIL 2.1 Perusal of the above Returns, seized books of accounts, documents and materials was duly confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Regular books of accounts were produced and checked with the seized documents. There was no seized material and no discrepancy found during the course of search. The assessee constructed a residential house property at Shymala Hills, the said property was referred to the registered valuer on 27.12.2016, and he valued the cost of ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 3 construction of the property as Rs. 2.63 crores. During the assessment proceedings, again the same property was referred to District Valuation Officer (in short “DVO”) to determine the cost of construction. The DVO determined the value of property as Rs. 2,87,87,001/-. Whereas the assessee declared the cost of construction as Rs. 1,29,55,436/-. Thus, the difference in cost of construction is added as undisclosed income of the assessee for various Assessment Years as follows: A.Y. Undisclosed investment (In Rs.) 2011-12 27,28,104/- 2012-13 15,93,388/- 2013-14 24,29,418/- 2014-15 11,64,873/- 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) challenging the jurisdiction of assessments made under Section 153A, where no incriminating material was found during the course of search, as well as the valuation made by the DVO. The CIT(A) rejected the validity of assessments made under Section 153A as follows: “4.1 Ground No 1 for 2011-12 to 2014-15:- Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s143(3). I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, various decision cited, and the assessment order. Once the search has taken place and notices u/s 153 A has been issued the jurisdiction is conferred on the assessing officer to pass assessment order ‘to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made’. The assessing officer has specifically mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order that various books of accounts, documents, loose papers were seized. The appellant assessee has filled the returns of income in response to notice u/s 153 A issued on 10.04.2018 for A.Y 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and the assessee filed returns of income for A.Ys 2011-12 to 2016-17 on 16.04.2018 and the regular return for A.Y 2017-18 was filed on 25.08.2017. The authorized representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings before the A.O from time to time and filed written submissions with supporting documents which were placed on record by the A.O. Regular books of accounts were also produced and checked with ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 4 seized material by the A.O. Inspection and copies of all seized documents was provided by the A.O. 4.1.1 Once the assessee has participated in assessment proceedings before the A.O the appellant assessee cannot claim that issue of notice u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) for A.Y 2011-12 to 2016-17 is not in order. Once the assesse has been put to notice and has filed returns in response to the notices and has attended the assessment proceedings, it cannot be said that issue of notice u/s 153 A is not in order. It is seen that the issue of notice u/s 153A by the A.O for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17 is in order. Perusal of the assessment order shows that during search and seizure operations books of account, document, loose papers etc. were seized. Photocopies of the seized material was also provided to the assessee by the A.O. The seized documents and papers are the incriminating material on the basis of which the additions have been made. In view of the above, the ground taken by the appellant that no incriminating material is found and the issue of notices u/s 153A for A.Y 2011-12 to 2014-15 is not justified, has not merit and is therefore, rejected. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Dismissed. ” 3.1 On merits of the case also the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the DVO who has given due credence for allowance of margin of difference in CPWD & PWD rates and 5% for self-supervision expenses. Thus, the CIT(A) held that the valuation done by the DVO does not require interference, thereby confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved against the same assessee is in appeal before us raising following common grounds of appeal for all the four Assessment Years except change in figures: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment made u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and, therefore, be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment year is a non abated assessment year because no proceedings of assessment/re-assessment were pending on the date of search and in absence of any incriminating material found in the search, the addition for the alleged unexplained investment in the construction of the house made by the learned A.O. and sustained by the learned CIT(A) at Rs. 1294672 is unlawful, unjustified and without jurisdiction, hence the same be kindly deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition sustained at Rs. 1294672 by the learned CIT(A) for the alleged unexplained investment in construction of house is unlawful & unjustified because no incriminating material/concrete evidence was found in the search which showed ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 5 that the assessee had made more investment of Rs. 1294672 in the previous year and, therefore, the addition sustained at Rs. 1294672 be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the actual expenditure incurred and shown by the assessee, in the construction of house, be kindly accepted and the unlawful and unjustified addition sustained at Rs. 1294672 (50% of Rs. 2589345) be kindly deleted. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in excluding the expenditure incurred by the assessee and her co-owner Smt Tara Devi Agarwal at Rs. 727663 in A.Y. 2010-11 & Rs. 69598 in A.Y. 2015-16 while computing the total cost of the house. The unjustified exclusion of the aforesaid amounts be kindly quashed and the said amount be considered in the total cost of the house incurred by the assessee. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reference made to the DVO was unlawful and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the addition made on the basis of such unlawful reference be kindly deleted. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, as the reference was made u/s.131(1)(d) of the Act and, therefore, the said reference was unlawful and the addition made on the basis of such unlawful reference be kindly deleted. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the method of valuation adopted by the DVO is wholly unlawful and injudicious and the same is contrary to the various decisions of the Appellate Tribunals and the Hon'ble High Courts and. therefore, such method of valuation be kindly quashed. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the method of valuation adopted by DVO in injudicious method of valuation and the same is also bad in law because the requisite details/information were not supplied to the assessee as requested vide letter dated 19.12.2018. 10. That without prejudice to foregoing grounds, the assessee submits that when more than one method of valuation are available then the most favorable method of valuation to assessee be adopted and, therefore, the valuation done by the approved valuer on the basis of local PWD CSR be kindly accepted and the addition based on DVO’s report & sustained by the learned CIT(A) at Rs. 1294672 be kindly deleted. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the provisions of section 69B are not applicable and, therefore, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) at Rs. 1294672 is bad in law and be kindly deleted. 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C are unlawful and unjustified and, therefore, be cancelled.” 5. Heard both the parties extensively and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Books filed by the assessees. Though the grounds of appeals are argumentative and elaborate in nature and not in proper sequence, we need to consider the jurisdiction issue first namely Ground Nos. 2 & 3 as the preliminary ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 6 issue. In the present case in hand, the assessee in her reply to the 143(2) notices explained the so called seized materials as follows: ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 7 ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 8 5.1 The above seized materials mainly pertained to Agrawal Jewellers at Chowk, Bhopal and T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. The seized materials pertaining to the sales bills of Agrawal Jewellers and no incriminating material relating to the assessee produced before us. A thorough perusal of the assessment order also, there is no whisper about any seized documents which relates to the assessee, found during the search proceedings by the Department. The Assessing Officer also has not brought on record any seized material that pertaining to or relating to the assessee, seized during the course of search action. In the absence of the same, the only addition made in these years is based on the valuation of the cost of construction of the residential building belongs to the assessee and her daughter in law. 5.2 We need not labour ourselves, since an identical issue was dealt by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 180 & ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 9 181/Ind/2016 dated 20.10.2022 (which is authored by the Accountant Member) wherein the validity of assessment order under Section 153A of the Act was considered as follows: “7. In this ground, the grievance of assessee is that the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- in AY 2004-05, has been made in the proceeding of section 153A without having any incriminating material seized during the course of search and therefore the addition is illegal. 8. Ld. AR instantly pointed out that the AY 2004-05 is a non-abated assessment-year. Then, Ld. AR submitted that the impugned addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-, treating the loan taken from M/s JMPL as non-genuine, has been made on the basis of statements of Mr. D.N. Naik / Mr. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal recorded during survey-proceeding conducted upon M/s JMPL on 04.12.2009. Ld. AR stressed that the revenue has thus made addition on the basis of post-search enquiry/surveys and not on the basis of any kind of incriminating material found during search upon assessee conducted on 07.09.2007. Ld. DR could not rebut these factual submissions made by Ld. AR. 9. Having found that the Ld. AO has made addition in an unabated assessment year without having incriminating material, we straightaway observe that the position is directly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of PCIT Vs. Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (2021) 11 ITJ Online 314 (MP), ITA No. 21, 31 & 32 of 2019, order dated 12.07.2019, wherein relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 2 ITJ Online 869 (Trib. – Delhi) : (2016) 380 ITR 573 : (2015) 281 CTR 45 : (2015) 234 Taxman 300, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the revenue’s appeal by holding that no addition can be made u/s 153A in a non-abated assessment year in absence of incriminating material found during search. The relevant paras of the decision are reproduced below: “8. Dwelling on the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 2 ITJ Online 869 (Trib. – Delhi) : (2016) 380 ITR 573 : (2015) 281 CTR 45 : (2015) 234 Taxman 300 observed: “37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 10 ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 9. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed. 10. In the given facts of present case as no incriminating documents during course of search are found, the order in appeal cannot be said to have suffered the illegality as would give rise to the proposed substantial question of law. 11. Consequently, appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.” ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 11 10. Shri P.K. Mitra, Ld. CIT-DR, representing the revenue filed a WrittenSubmission and also made Oral-Submission at length. We have given a peaceful hearing to his submissions and would like to record the crux of his submission very briefly. Ld. CIT-DR, with all respect to the Hon’ble Courts, submitted that according to him there had been a change in the scheme for assessment of search cases from time to time. He submitted that in the case of searches conducted upto 31.05.2003, scheme of “Block- assessment” prescribed under Chapter-XIV-B consisting of section 158B to 158BH was applicable, but in respect of searches conducted after 31.05.2003, a new scheme prescribed u/s 153A to 153D is applicable. Ld. DR would further explain that while in older scheme u/s 158B to 158BH, there was assessment only of “undisclosed income”, the newer scheme u/s 153A to 153D prescribes assessment of “total income including undisclosed income”. He would further submit that due to this material change, the present scheme u/s 153A to 153D is a “full-fledged” type of assessment wherein the concept of “incriminating material” is not applicable because the AO has power to assessee full power to assess total income, which may or may not be based on incriminating material. According to him, in the present case of assessee where assessment had been made by Ld. AO u/s 153A and not u/s 158BC, the addition made, even without having incriminating material, must be viewed as legal. 11. We observe that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (supra) has clearly held that in absence of incriminating material, addition cannot be made in an assessment of unabated year u/s 153A. Ld. CIT-DR is not able to demonstrate any decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court holding against the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In fact, having made his own submission as recorded in foregoing paragraph, Ld. CITDR himself agreed to the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court with full respect. 12. At this stage, we would also like to mention that in their later decision in the case of Pr. CIT and ors. Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Patels and Ors. (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reiterated with approval their observations in Kabul Chawala’s case (supra) that completed assessments could be interfered with by AO while making assessment u/s 153A only on basis of incriminating material unearthed during course of search. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material was found, no addition or disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers u/s 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated. This later decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing Revenue’s SLP in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2018) 96 taxmann. Com 468 (SC). 13. In view of above discussion, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (supra), we are of the view that in the present appeal, the addition made by Ld. AO without having any incriminating material, is beyond the purview of section 153A and, therefore, clearly unsustainable. Hence, we have no hesitation in deleting the same. The assessee succeeds in Ground No. 2 on legal basis itself. Resultantly, ITA No. 180/Ind/2016 of AY 2004-05 is allowed.” ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 12 5.3 Respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (cited Supra) we have no hesitation in holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer without having any incriminating material is against the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additions are not sustainable in law. Thus, the entire additions made by the Assessing Officer are deleted. 5.4 Even on merits, referring the case to District Valuation Officer (“DVO”) under Section 142A of the Act, without rejecting the Books of Account is invalid in law. The Assessing Officer in this case is verified the regular Books of Accounts produced by the assessee and checked with the seized documents. However, he has not find any fault or discrepancies in the Books of Accounts maintained by the assessee before referring to the District Valuation Officer and without rejection of books. This issue is dealt by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 577 & 578/Ind/2018 vide order dated 08.09.2022 (which is Authored by the Judicial Member) which reads as follows: “9. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. It is seen from the record, the assessing officer referred the matter regarding the cost of construction of the project M/s. Globus Green Acre to the District Valuation Officer. The District Valuation Officer assessed the cost of construction for the period during the financial year 2009-10 to 2012-13. The ld. A.O. while referring the case for DVO u/s. 142A, the assessing officer has not doubted the books of account maintained by the assessee. It is an admitted fact the books of account are duly audited by Chartered Accountant. 9.1. It is well settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sargam Cinema that assessing authority cannot refer any matter to DVO without books of account being rejected by him. This judgment is being followed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A.L. Homes (cited supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema clearly laid down the law without rejection of books of account, the A.O. cannot refer the matter under 142A with the DVO. ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 13 9.2. It is appropriate to quote the applicability of Section 142A of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Westland Miltech Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) held as follows: 4. ................ It is observed that the only dispute on this issue is about the investment made by the assessee in purchase of 11 plots in the course of its business. Whereas the assessee went by the rates given in sale deeds as a proper measure of investment made, the AO estimated the investment made by the assessee on the basis of the DVO’s report, which valuation was partially reduced by the ld. CIT (A). The AO, in making this addition did not reject the books of account maintained by the assessee and straightway went ahead in making the addition on the basis of the DVO’s report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT [20101 328 ITR S13/r2011] 197 Taxman 203 has held that where the books of account are not rejected by the AO, no reference can be validly made to the DVO for making an addition. The reliance of the ld. DR on some contrary judgment of some non-jurisdictional High Court is misplaced. It is obvious that when an issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no lower Court, much less the Tribunal, can disobey the same. Relying on the direct judgment from the Hon’ble Summit Court on ‘this issue, the action taken by the AO in making the addition on the basis of the DVO’s report, without first rejecting the books of account, cannot be sustained. 5. The ld. DR then contended that the position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is no more relevant after the insertion of section 142A of the Act. We are not convinced with the submission in so far as the extant assessment year is concerned. It is relevant to note that sub- section (2) of section 142A as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.10.2014 provides that : The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub- section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. There was no analogous provision prior to this insertion. This shows that the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema (supra) for not making any addition on the basis of the DVO’s report without first rejecting the books of account, is valid up to the period prior to the insertion of sub-section (2). As the assessment year under consideration is 2006-07, being, a year anterior to the amendment, the same will be governed by the judgment in Sargam Cinema (supra) and not the later amendment nullifying the pro tanlo effect of this judgment. 9.3. Thus going by the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2010-11 which is prior to the insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 142A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 2014. Therefore without rejection of books of account the assessing officer ought not to have referred the matter to DVO to determine the cost of construction of the Project of the assessee. Therefore the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue does not find any merit and the addition made u/s. 69A deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby upheld.” ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 14 Thus, following the above judicial principles, we hold that the Valuation Report obtained by the Assessing Officer without rejection of books is contrary to the provisions of Section 142A of the Act. Therefore, the addition made based on the Valuation Report is not sustainable in law on merits of the case. On this count, also the additions are liable to be deleted. 6. The appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed. ITA Nos. 05 to 08/Ind/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15):- 7. Here the assessee is the daughter in law on the same set of facts and also co-owner of the residential property at Shymala Hills which is the subject matter of valuation made by D.V.O. Respectfully following the decision taken in ITA Nos. 01 to 04/Ind/2020, we follow the same ratio hereinalso and delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer which is against the provisions of Section 153A and Section 142A of the Act. 8. In the combined result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 11.01.2023 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated /01/2023 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY O r d e r pr o n o u nc e d o n /0 1/2 0 23 b y p l a c i n g t h e r e s u l t o n th e N o t i c e B o a rd a s p e r R u l e 3 4 ( 4 ) o f th e In c o m e T a x (A p p e l l a t e T r i b u n a l ) R u l e , 1 9 6 3 . ITA Nos.01to08/Ind/2020 A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 15 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ! / The Appellant 2. "यथ! / The Respondent. 3. संबं&धत आयकर आय ु (त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु (त)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न&ध ,आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Indore 6. गाड1 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary, आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण, ITAT, Indore 1. Date of dictation : 22-12-2022, 09.01.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 23-12-2022, 09.01.2023 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 27-12-2022 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : .12.2022 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : -12-2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :