Condonation of Delay and Valuation Referral upheld; limited unexplained delay condoned and DVO reference with State PWD rates sustained.

Condonation of a 38 day delay was granted where the assessee's uncontroverted affidavit (counsel's cataract surgery) justified the delay, permitting admission of the appeal. On merits, the Assessing Officer validly referred construction cost valuation to the District Valuation Officer; the Commissioner (Appeals) permissibly altered the DVO's choice of CPWD rates by directing adoption of State PWD rates. The tribunal sustained the referral and the appellate modification, rejecting the assessee's challenge and dismissing the appeal on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer's reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining construction cost and the resultant addition based on DVO valuation (and the choice of rate schedule) are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The assessee furnished an affidavit alleging that the assessee's counsel underwent cataract surgery, and the Revenue did not controvert the averments. The affidavit and condonation petition were examined on the record and not denied by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Officer's reference to the DVO to determine construction cost and the consequent addition based on the DVO's valuation (including the choice of CPWD vs State PWD rates) are sustainable.

Analysis: The record shows the Assessing Officer referred valuation to the DVO who used CPWD rates; the Commissioner (Appeals) adjusted the valuation directing use of State PWD rates. The assessee's primary contention that the AO had no power to refer to the DVO was not supported by material placed on record (Form 35 was absent from the paper book) and, in any event, the AO's reference to the DVO to ascertain construction cost was within the assessment framework. The CIT(A)'s direction on adopting State PWD rates addressed the rate-selection issue; there was no basis to interfere with the CIT(A)'s considered findings.

Conclusion: The referral to the DVO and the CIT(A)'s modification (directing adoption of State PWD rates) are upheld; the assessee's challenge to the referral is rejected.

Final Conclusion: The condonation of delay permitted adjudication on merits, and on merits the Assessing Officer's reference to the DVO and the CIT(A)'s valuation direction are sustained; the assessee's appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee's unexplained investment in construction is in issue, the Assessing Officer may refer valuation to the DVO to ascertain construction cost, and appellate modification of the rate schedule used by the DVO is a permissible corrective measure; unexplained or uncontroverted affidavit grounds suffice for condonation of limited delay in filing an appeal.

---