TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative for the assessee and the same are dismissed as not pressed. Whereas in ITA No. 245/Chd/1995, the Revenue has taken the following effective grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 2,08,675 out of addition of Rs. 2,69,422 made on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house." "2. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in giving benefit of intangible additions from the asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1992-93 especially when the assessee had not taken this stand before the AO and he has not led any evidence to the effect that the amount was in fact available with him." "3. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in not directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act with Expln. 2 thereto." "4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in giving credit for the sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the capital account of Smt. Krishna w/o Sh. Thakur Singh on 7th April, 1992, towards the construction of house especially when the house was completed on 31st March, 1992. The order of learned CIT(A) is pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has further erred in not directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act r/w Expln. 2 thereof." "4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving credit for the sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the capital account of Smt. Pritam Kaur w/o Shri Parkash Singh on 7th April, 1992, towards the construction of house especially when the house was completed on 31st March, 1992. The order of CIT(A) is perverse to the facts of the case." 3.1 In this case, assessee Shri Parkash Singh (HUF) has shown investment in the property at Rs. 2,99,000 whereas the same was estimated by the VO at Rs. 5,44,094 and since, according to the AO, the difference in the investment remained unexplained by the assessee, so, he made the addition of Rs. 2,45,094. On appeal the CIT(A) giving benefit of Rs. 50,000 being withdrawal by the wife of the assessee and assessee's share of Rs. 1,12,704 in the firm and also allowing as rebate on account of self-supervision at 10 per cent against 7.5 per cent allowed by the AO, sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 74,038 against Rs. 2,45,094 made by the AO. Now against the addition, sustained by the CIT(A) and relief of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm Tirath Singh and Parkash Singh & Co. 25,505 being available to the assessee for investment and also allowing a rebate of 10 per cent for self-supervision against 7.5 per cent allowed by the AO, sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 73,224 against Rs. 2,77,000 made by the AO. Now against this addition, sustained by the CIT(A) and relief of Rs. 2,08,891 allowed by the CIT(A) to the assessee, both the parties are in appeal before us. 5. In all these cases, the main contention of the learned authorised representative for the assessee before us, is that in all these cases the construction of house property for which the additions have been made by the AO, and reduced by the CIT(A), pertained to 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1992 and this fact along with detailed investment in construction during relevant asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1992-93 were given to the AO and the same also finds mentioned in the order of Valuation Officer because he has estimated the cost of construction separately during the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1992-93 so the tax authorities below were not justified in making entire addition for the difference in the cost of construction in the asst. yr. 1992-93 and so, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the AO has failed to establish that the difference in the entire cost of construction shown by the assessee and estimated by the Valuation Officer was incurred by the assessee only in the asst. yr. 1992-93, so, the addition for the impugned amount could not have been made under s. 69 in asst. yr. 1992-93. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not succeed in controvering the factual position narrated by the learned authorised representative for the assessee in his submissions nor he was able to give any citation in which contrary view has been taken by the Tribunal or by the High Court to the view taken by the Tribunal Bench, Chandigarh, in the case cited by the learned authorised representative. He was also not able to repell the submission of learned authorised representative for the assessee that as per the provisions of s. 69, only unexplained investment can be added in the year under consideration for which the investment was made by the assessee in the previous year. 6. On considering these submissions of both the parties, perusing the records and carefully going through the orders of tax authorities below, we find force in the submissions of learned aut....