ITO, Wd-1, Ichalkaranji, Ichalkaranji V. Smt. Smita V. Bhore, Ichalkaranji

MA 98/PUN/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7077 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTA
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 98/PN/2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 832/PN/2003) (ASSTT. YEAR :2000-01) INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, ... APP LICA NT ICHALKARANJI V. SMT. SMITA V. BHORE, RESPONDENT ICHALKARANJI., PAN : NOT AVAILABLE APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K. AMBASTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI DATE OF HEARING :05. 8 .2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM WHILE REITERATING THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT IN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUATION OF BUILD ING SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 4,73,000/- AND RS.9,66,807/-, THE VALUE ARRIVED AT BY VALUATION OFFICER. HE POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDIT ION ON THE BASIS THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE BUILDING BY THE ASSE SSEE AND VALUATION OFFICER IS MARGINALLY LESS THAN 15%, WHICH IS NORMALLY POSSIBL E IN THE OPINION OF THE DIFFERENT EXPERTS. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MIS-REPRESENTED THE FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY PLEADING THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN FURTHER/ADDITIONAL COST OF RS. 2,00,000/- IN A.Y. 2001-02 AND CONSIDERING T HIS COST, THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION AS PER THE VALUATION OFFICER AND AS PER T HE ASSESSEE COMES TO MARGINALLY LESS THAN 15%. BASED ON THIS PLEA, THE TRIBUNAL HA S DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT HAVING OCCASION TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MA . NO 98/PN/2008 SMT. SMITA V. BHORE. A.Y. 2000-01 PAGE OF 3 2 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2001-02 AND NOT TO A.Y. 2000-01 UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED ACCORDINGLY. 2. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE NOTE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IT WAS POINTED OUT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALSO STATED IN CONCLUDING PARA NO. 4 OF THE ORDER T HAT FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A FURTHER INVESTMENT OF RS. 2,75 ,000/- TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE DVO HAS ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 15.8.1999, HOWEVER, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED ON THAT DATE AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31 ST MARCH 2001. THUS, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 8,00,0 00/- AGAINST WHICH THE DVO HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 9,66,807/-. THE LD. A.R . POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT THE DATE OF VALUATION REPORT IS 20 TH FEBRUARY 2002. THUS, THE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON 20 TH FEBRUARY 2002. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, AND HAVING GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBU NAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THUS, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT ASSE SSEE HAS MIS-REPRESENTED THE FACT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THUS ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IS BASED ON WRONG FACTUAL PREMISES. WE, THUS, DO NOT FIND MISTAKE IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE THUS OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISS ED. MA . NO 98/PN/2008 SMT. SMITA V. BHORE. A.Y. 2000-01 PAGE OF 3 3 THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT, KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT(A)- KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R. ITAT B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE