TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds that the learned CIT(A) has erred in: 1. deleting the addition in house construction holding that the valuation of cost of construction is not foolproof technique and the addition to the income cannot be made on the basis of valuation report; 2. not cross-examining the valuation officer for allowing opportunity to the AO to produce the valuation officer while deleting the addition being difference in house construction; 3. deleting the addition being addition in business income; 4. not recording finding on the application of provisions of s. 115 whereas the AO had recorded categorical finding after pinpointing specific defects; and 5. deleting the addition made on account of household expenses. 2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (without electric and sanitary fitting, furnishing, etc.) is determined by the DVO at Rs. 10,80,609. The valuation of Rs. 10,80,609 is on estimation basis by applying a formula. The electric and sanitary fittings are also taken at a very high figure, particularly internal water supply, internal electrical fitting, external services with extra items have all been taken on estimate basis. The total cost determined is Rs. 13,94,902 for the construction area. It was further submitted that the basic difference is on account of basic cost which has been determined by the DVO on the basis of index and reproduce production cost basis. The area is 3,917 sq. ft. The basic cost is taken at Rs. 10,80,609 against which the AO has taken Rs. 8,61,027. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost of construction declared by the assessee which included books of account, pass book, labour register, etc., bank account, cash book for house construction and bills of materials and fittings, etc. After considering the objections raised by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) has come to the following conclusion: "12. I have considered the above contentions and submissions, and examined the details on record, and also perused the decisions cited by the appellant's counsel. I, firstly, find that the valuation of cost of construction is not a foolproof technique and where different methods of valuation are there, the method which is more appropriate and beneficial to the assessee is to be adopted. Secondly, I find that when proper books ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advanced by the parties, we do not find reason to interfere therewith as the appellate order is comprehensive and reasoned one. We confirm the same as the learned CIT(A) after considering the objections of the assessee has rightly deleted the additions made towards investment in house construction for the assessment years under appeal. The grounds in this regard are thus dismissed. 5. Ground No. 3 : The AO has made additions of Rs. 20,000 in the asst. yr. 1994-95, Rs. 25,000 in the asst. yr. 1995-96 and Rs. 30,000 in the asst. yr. 1996-97 towards business income which have been deleted by the learned CIT(A) against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. In support of this ground, the learned Departmental Representative submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trict the addition respectively to Rs. 10,000 in the asst. yr. 1994-95, Rs. 13,000 in the asst. yr. 1995-96 and Rs. 15,000 in the asst. yr. 1996-97. The AO is directed to make the additions in these years accordingly. In the result, the ground is partly allowed. 8. Ground No. 4 : We have already adjudicated this ground in ground No. 3 hereinabove. Thus, the issue involved in this ground does not require separate adjudication. 9. Ground No. 5 : The AO made the additions of Rs. 17,802 in the asst. yr. 1994-95, Rs. 23,527 in the asst. yr. 1995-96 and Rs. 22,369 in the asst. yr. 1996-97 on account of household expenses. The learned Departmental Representative justifies the assessment order whereas the first appellate order has been relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid appeals of the Revenue. In view of the finding therein, the cross-objections become infructuous and dismissed as such. 13. ITA Nos. 146 to 148/Ind/2001 : The first appellate order in these years has been questioned by the Revenue on similar grounds as in the aforesaid appeals. Both the parties have also adopted the same arguments as advanced in the aforesaid appeals in support of their respective cases. 14. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the material available on record. We find that in these years the additions on account of house construction have been made by the AO at Rs. 54,654 in the asst. yr. 1994-95, Rs. 79,129 in the asst. yr. 1995-96 and Rs. 53,749 in the asst. yr. 1996-97. The sam....