Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved, Bengaluru V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int. Taxn, Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

MA 100/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9639 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Rectification of order; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

MP No.100/Bang/2022 Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.100/Bang/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.257/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved No.521, 16 th Main, 3 rd Block Koramangala Bangalore 560 002 PAN NO : BOBPM8457G Vs. ACIT Int. Taxn. Circle-1(2) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.S. Kamalakara, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. M. Padma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee seeking rectification of order of the Tribunal in ITA No.257/Bang/2022 dated 15.6.2022. 2. The ld. AR submitted that assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the addition sustained by ld. CIT(A) at Rs.24,14,223/- towards cost of construction of the building. The Tribunal disposed of the issue by observing as under:- MP No.100/Bang/2022 Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 “We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, assessee filed the Registered Valuer Report before the Ld. CIT(A), which was not made available to AO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have called for remand report asking the AO to compare the DVO report with the Registered Valuer Report, which he failed to do so. In view of this, we are inclined to send back the entire issue to the file of AO to compare the Registered Valuer Report with the DVO report and decide issue afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to explain the difference between these two reports to the satisfaction of the AO. If the assessee fails to explain the differences, with necessary evidence, the AO is at liberty to take adverse inference and has to sustain the addition. With this observation, we remit this matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration.” 3. The Ld. A.R. submitted that on earlier occasion the contention of assessee was that in absence of DVO report, the Registered Valuer report produced by the assessee to be accepted and there cannot be any addition towards cost of construction. There was no DVO repot procured by the AO at the time of assessment. However, the Tribunal given a direction to the AO to compare the DVO report with the Registered Valuer report and decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. According to the Ld. A.R., the incorrect finding of the Tribunal, which is not based on the facts of the case. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that there is a mistake apparent on record, which may be corrected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Tribunal wrongly recorded the findings in its order that the AO failed to compare the DVO report with the registered valuer report filed by the assessee. However, it is made clear by both the parties before us that there is no DVO report obtained by the AO at the time of assessment. Hence, it was admitted fact that there was no DVO report called for by the AO at the time of MP No.100/Bang/2022 Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 assessment. Further, ld. A.R. submitted before us that the building is still in existence and revenue may refer the matter for DVO for valuation and that valuation may be compared with the registered valuer report so as to ascertain the true cost of construction and thereby ascertain the true cost of the capital assets. In view of this, we delete the earlier para 5, 6 & 7 of the Tribunal order and substitute the paras in the earlier order of the Tribunal as below and to be read as follows:- “5. At the time of haring, Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has submitted valuation report before Ld. CIT(A), which was ignored and he has considered only the steel cost. According to the Ld. A.R., the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the registered valuer report in the absence of DVO report so as to ascertain the cost of construction. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has not submitted registered valuer report before AO and only it was produced before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules on 13.12.2021. In such circumstances, the issue may be remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, assessee filed registered valuer report before Ld. CIT(A), which was not made available to the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have called for remand report asking the AO to obtain the DVO report and compare the same with registered valuer report which he failed to do so. In view of this, we are inclined to remit entire issue to the file of AO to call for DVO report and compare the same with the registered valuer report and decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.” MP No.100/Bang/2022 Mohamed Abdul Hameed Maved, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 6. The Miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th Oct, 2022 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 28 th Oct, 2022. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.