Revenue appeal partly allowed in valuation dispute; CIT(A) grants relief, Tribunal upholds some decisions. (A)

The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed in a case involving the addition of Rs. 2,30,30,522 as unexplained investment, totaling mistake in the Valuation Report, deduction of cost for electrical installations, variation in CPWD and local rates, and deduction for self-supervision. The CIT(A) granted relief on various grounds, partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld some decisions while dismissing others, ultimately partially allowing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 17th July 2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2,30,30,522/- as unexplained investment.
2. Totaling mistake in the Valuation Report.
3. Deduction of cost for electrical installations.
4. Deduction towards variation in CPWD and local rates.
5. Deduction towards self-supervision.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 2,30,30,522/- as unexplained investment:
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2012-13 admitting a loss of Rs. 10,45,529/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO referred the matter to the DVO for valuation of building construction. The DVO valued the property at Rs. 5,52,54,000/-, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,30,30,522/- as unexplained investment. The assessee contended that adequate opportunity to file objections to the DVO report was not provided. The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 2,08,01,415/- and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

2. Totaling mistake in the Valuation Report:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs. 19,36,116/- due to a totaling mistake in the Valuation Report. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in adopting the valuation of Rs. 19,36,116/- instead of Rs. 8,58,893/- as per the DVO report. The AO was directed to adopt Rs. 8,58,893/- as the cost of flooring, partly allowing this ground raised by the Revenue.

3. Deduction of cost for electrical installations:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 42,12,602/- for electrical fittings. The Tribunal found that the lessee had incurred Rs. 66,13,127/- towards electrical fittings, as confirmed by a letter to the DVO. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to deduct Rs. 42,12,602/- from the cost of construction. This ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.

4. Deduction towards variation in CPWD and local rates:
The CIT(A) allowed a 15% deduction towards variation between CPWD rates and local rates. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing consistent rulings by the jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, including the case of M/s. Hillocks Hotels Pvt Ltd. This ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.

5. Deduction towards self-supervision:
The CIT(A) allowed a 10% deduction for self-supervision. The Tribunal upheld this decision, following consistent rulings by the jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, including the case of M/s. Hillocks Hotels Pvt Ltd. This ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, and the cross-objection raised by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 17th July 2023.

---