PULIYAMBRA SUBRAMANIAN UDAYAKUMAR,THRISSUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR

ITA 378/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar, the appellant, who was assessed for the Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1 & TPS, Guruvayoor, following the construction of a double-storeyed house. The ITO issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of a regular return of income from the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring an income significantly lower than the estimated cost of construction. The ITO, based on a DVO's report, added a substantial amount as unexplained investment in the house, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, suggesting the assessee pursue a separate appeal regarding the DVO's report.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712609 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPIN K K
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 378/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar .......... Appellant Puliyambra House, Mullassery Post, Thrissur, Kerala [PAN: AESPU 9516 R] vs. ITO, Ward-1 & TPS, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vipin K K, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad [CIT(A)] dated 30.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No regular return of income for the AY 2014-15 was filed by the assessee. The ITO, Ward-1 & TPS, Guruvayoor (for short, 'AO') based on the information that the assessee constructed doubled Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 378/Coch/2025 Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar storeyed house at a cost of Rs. 50-60 lakhs, issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') calling upon the assessee to file return of income for the AY 2014-15. In response to the notice issued, the assessee filed his return of income on 26/02/2016 declaring income of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29/12/2016 passed u/s. 143(2) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 23,35,043/-. While doing so, the AO made the addition of Rs.20,95,043/- as unexplained investment in the residential house, based on the valuation report submitted by the DVO on the cost of construction. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO for the failure of the assessee to prove the source of cost of construction. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the Valuation Officer has not valued the actual cost of construction house. The actual cost of construction was only Rs. 22,00,000/-. In support of this, assessee has filed copy of permission for digging of well issued on 03/12/2008 and the copy of application for electricity dated 29/01/2009 etc. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 378/Coch/2025 Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR supporting the orders of the lower authorities and requested no interference is called for. 7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made on account of value of construction based on DVO’s report. The assessee is aggrieved by the DVO’s report, a separate appeal lies before the Ld. CIT(A). The validity of DVO’s cannot be challenged in the appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the assessee is at liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against the DVO’s report. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the assessee, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st July, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 378/Coch/2025 Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "