2011 (11) TMI 444 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal decision on construction cost, citing improper accounts maintenance.

The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal against the addition to the cost of construction due to ... Addition - Reference to DVO - Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Assessing Authority could not have referred the matter to the DVO in a case where there was categorical finding recorded rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee - it is clear that the Assessing Officer as also the Appellate Authority have upheld the reference made to the DVO as it was found that the accounts had not been properly maintained and did not reflect the actual expenditure incurred - Appeal is dismissed Issues:Appeal against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in ITA No.503/Bang/2010 (assessment year 2001-02) dismissed - Allegation of improper maintenance of accounts - Reference to District Valuation Officer (DVO) - Dispute over addition to cost of construction - Applicability of principles from Sargam Cinema case - Substantial question of law raised.Analysis:The appellant, a firm running a hospital, filed a return of income declaring nil income for the financial year 2000-01. The Assessing Officer found the accounts not properly maintained as they did not reflect the cost of construction, leading to a reference to the DVO. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, sustaining 25% of the addition to the cost of construction. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the principles in the Sargam Cinema case, arguing that as the Assessing Officer did not set aside the accounts, the matter could not be referred to the DVO. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court, claiming a substantial question of law.The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The appellant asserted that the Assessing Authority erred in referring the matter to the DVO without setting aside the accounts. In contrast, the revenue contended that a categorical finding of improper maintenance of accounts justified the reference to the DVO. The Court analyzed the record and noted that the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority upheld the reference to the DVO due to the improper maintenance of accounts, leading to the rejection of the appellant's accounts. The Court found that the Tribunal correctly observed that the reference to the DVO was made after it was established that the accounts were not properly maintained. Additionally, the First Appellate Authority had already provided substantial relief to the appellant by adding only 25% of the construction cost. Consequently, the Court concluded that no further relief was warranted, as the Tribunal did not identify any grounds for additional relief. Thus, the Court held that the appellant's contentions lacked merit and dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial questions of law were involved in the case.