THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 V. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/416/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated October 10, 2019. The ITAT had ruled on the valuation of construction costs reported by Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., which was significantly lower than the valuation by the DVO. The Principal Commissioner raised three questions of law, primarily contesting the ITAT's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and the application of Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court, referencing the Ambience Developers case, found the valuation difference of 2.54% between the assessee and the DVO's reports to be minor and upheld the ITAT's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684471 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [328 ITR 513 (SC)], Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P. Ltd. [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3928]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SACHIT JOLLY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM CHAWLA; PRATISHTHA CHAUDHARY; MONICA BENJAMIN; NAVEEN ROHILA
• Keywords: Cost of construction; Departmental Valuation Officer; Income tax appellate tribunal; Valuation Variation
• Section: 142A

Judgement Text

"$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 416/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL - 1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC along with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC and Mr. Naveen Rohila, Adv. versus VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.05.2024 1. The Principal Commissioner assails the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 10 October 2019 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:- “A. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts is a mandatory pre- condition before referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer ('DVO') for the purpose of determination of the cost of Construction? B. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in following the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [328 ITR 513 (SC)] without appreciating the insertion of Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced vide Finance Act, 2004? C. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in not sustaining the addition of Rs.90,50,894, relatable to the cost of construction of the project basis the DVO Report on the premise that the difference between the value declared by the Respondent/Assessee and the DVO is less than 3% and therefore This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2024 at 12:41:44 constitutes an insignificant difference?” 2. Having heard Mr. Chawla, learned counsel in support of the appeal, we find that the issue which stands raised essentially stands concluded against the appellant bearing in mind the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P. Ltd. [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3928] wherein the following was observed: “16. In view of the above, it is evident that the valuation in this case was uncritically accepted by the AO. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86%. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved. Besides, the fact that the AO did not examine the variations, with specific reference to any items of expenditure that were unreasonable, or showed wide variation, these differences can also be put down to differing perceptions, and the practice adopted by the concerned business activity. 17. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the variation in valuation, in this case between what was disclosed by the assessee and what was indicated by the DVO is not significant, this court is of opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.” 3. Undisputedly, the variation between the valuation as relied upon by the assessee and that which was found by the Departmental Valuation Officer is 2.54%. Bearing in mind the insignificant variation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ITAT. 4. Accordingly, and in the light of the principles laid down in Ambience Developers, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 03, 2024/neha This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2024 at 12:41:44 "