1989 (5) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Beawar, between July, 1981 and June, 1983. The assessee declared the investment therein at Rs. 1,56,470. However, the ITO, considering the cost declared to be low, referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. The Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,88,600. Accordingly the ITO, vide his letter dt. 20th Jan., 1987 required the assessee to explain as to why the difference in the cost amounting to Rs. 37,476 (Rs. 1,88,600 minus 1,56,470) should not be added to its income as "income from unexplained investment". It appears that the assessee had, at the instance of the ITO, furnished valuation certificate of the Approved Valuer vide its letter dt. 10th Dec., 1985. The assessee wrote back to the ITO that the books of accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing decisions: (1) Shri Har Sarup Cold Storage & General Mills vs. ITO (1988) 27 ITD 1 (Del) and (2) CIT vs. Roshanlal Seth (1989) 77 CTR (P&H) 222: (1989) 178 ITR 660 (P&H). On the other hand, on behalf of the Department, the orders of the IT authorities were strongly relied upon. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to above. The appeal had been determined by the learned CIT(A) ex parte in the absence of any one on behalf of the assessee. The assessee had taken in the grounds of appeal a ground that opportunity of hearing had been denied to it and that the adjournment applications given on 5th Oct., 1987 and 24th Dec., 1987 had been unjustifiably not considered. However, this ground not having....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which requires consideration is that the report of the Valuation Officer obviously suffers from errors in so far as no allowance was made for personal supervision which was not denied and electrification charges for which actual expenditure account was maintained by the assessee, was not believed. Further the rates adopted were relevant to Delhi and not to Beawar. The Departmental Valuation Officer was factually incorrect in observing that the approved valuer of the assessee had omitted to take into consideration the investment on electrification, compound wall, steel gates, brick wall enclosure and under ground water tanks. It would suffice to state that as stated in the Approved Valuer's Report, PWD rates had been applied; there were onl....