Tribunal invalidates AO's referral to DVO; CIT(A) lacks jurisdiction

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142A was invalid. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69C was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have material to demonstrate understatement of construction costs before referring to the DVO and noted that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to interfere with concluded assessments by involving the valuation cell.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142A of the Income-tax Act.
2. Inclusion of administrative and supervisory charges in the cost of construction.
3. Validity of the addition made under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act.
4. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in interfering with concluded assessments.
5. Admission of additional income by the assessee for day-to-day expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reference to the DVO by the AO under Section 142A:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was that the reference to the DVO by the AO under Section 142A was without jurisdiction. The assessee argued that Section 142A applies only to investments referred to in Sections 69, 69A, and 69B, and not to Section 69C. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the AO must have some material to show that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was understated before making a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had not found any defects in the books of account maintained by the assessee, and without rejecting these books, the reference to the DVO was invalid. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Umiya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., where it was held that a reference under Section 142A can only be made during the pendency of assessment or reassessment proceedings.

2. Inclusion of Administrative and Supervisory Charges:
The assessee contended that the cost determined by the DVO included administrative and supervisory charges, which were not part of the cost submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as the primary ground of the invalidity of the reference to the DVO was upheld, rendering this issue academic.

3. Validity of the Addition Made under Section 69C:
The assessee argued that the addition made under Section 69C, based on the DVO's report, was illegal since Section 142A does not cover unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in AAR PEE Apartments (P) Ltd., which clarified that Section 142A does not extend to unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's reference to the DVO and the subsequent addition under Section 69C were invalid.

4. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in Interfering with Concluded Assessments:
The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to interfere with concluded assessments by referring to the valuation cell. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO cannot disturb the concluded assessments of other assessment years by referring the matter to the DVO for valuation of current assets in one assessment year.

5. Admission of Additional Income by the Assessee for Day-to-Day Expenses:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additional income admitted by the assessee for day-to-day expenses should be set off against the addition made. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately, as the primary ground of the invalidity of the reference to the DVO was upheld, rendering this issue academic.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reference to the DVO by the AO under Section 142A was invalid, and consequently, the addition made under Section 69C was unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have some material to show that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was understated before making a reference to the DVO and that the AO had not found any defects in the books of account maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to interfere with concluded assessments by referring to the valuation cell.

---