TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms &;20,000 addition for 1976-77, allows ITO to challenge valuers. PWD rates for property valuation.</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer Versus Smt. Santosh Khanna</h3> The Tribunal upheld the addition of &8377;20,000 for the assessment year 1976-77, dismissing the objection on the reference to the valuation cell. It ... - Issues:1. Validity of reference to valuation cell for determining cost of construction.2. Application of PWD rates for property valuation.3. Correct apportionment of unexplained investment.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of reference to valuation cell for determining cost of construction- The appeals by the revenue and the assessee were against the Commissioner (Appeals) order for the assessment year 1976-77.- The assessee constructed a house, disclosing the cost at &8377;1,06,000.- Discrepancy arose when the valuation cell estimated the cost at &8377;1,76,000, leading to an addition of &8377;70,000 by the ITO.- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition of &8377;20,000 only, apportioning the unexplained investment over three assessment years.- The legal objection raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reference to the valuation cell was dismissed.- The Tribunal held that the ITO has the inherent right to rebut reports of registered valuers filed by the assessee and is not bound by them.- The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO can seek expert opinion to test the correctness of the valuers' reports.- The Tribunal ruled that the ITO's jurisdiction to refer to the valuation cell does not require a specific provision in the Act.- The Tribunal differentiated a previous case where post-assessment reference to the valuation cell was deemed invalid.- Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.Issue 2: Application of PWD rates for property valuation- The argument was whether Rajasthan PWD rates or CPWD rates should be applied for property valuation.- The Commissioner (Appeals) found PWD rates to be more detrimental to the assessee, valuing the property at &8377;1,83,000.- The Tribunal held that PWD rates should be applied for property valuation within Rajasthan territory.- The Tribunal emphasized the need for natural justice, directing the ITO to allow the assessee to confront the valuation cell for a correct property valuation.- The case was restored to the ITO for a fresh determination based on PWD rates.Issue 3: Correct apportionment of unexplained investment- The revenue argued for apportioning unexplained investment based on the ratio of investments made by the assessee over three assessment years.- The Tribunal agreed with the revenue's submission and directed apportionment accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the validity of the reference to the valuation cell, the application of PWD rates for property valuation, and the correct apportionment of unexplained investment, providing detailed reasoning and directions for each issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
