ACIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, Mohali

MA 257/CHANDI/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7980 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.257 /CHD/2006 (IN ITA NO.125/CHD/2004) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98) THE A.C.I.T., VS. SH.RAMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, CIRCLE-5(1), C-76, INDL.AREA, PHASE VI, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. RAJPURA. PAN: - (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.05.2012 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPLICANT- REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 19.5.2006 IN ITA NO. 125/CHD/2004 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1997-98. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT-REVENUE IS IN RES PECT OF THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,21,016/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. THE SAID A DDITION WAS DELETED BECAUSE OF THE IGNORABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE APPLICANT- REVENUE VIDE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,68,000/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS BOO KED FOR TWO YEARS AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L. 2 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE DIFFERENT IN THE TWO FIGURES WAS MORE THAN 20%. 5. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION THE REVENUE HAS REARGUED THE ISSUE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE CONST RUCTION OF THE ASSET. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT TH E SAID EXPENDITURE WAS BOOKED FOR TWO YEARS. IN ANY CASE, DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE IN RELATION TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN 2 0% AND THE SAME BEING NEGLIGIBLE, ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS RIGHTLY DE LETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION M OVED BY THE APPLICANT-REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 9 TH MAY, 2012 RATI COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH