AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on account of difference in cost of construction." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee along with four other family members constructed plinths during the period 30-3-1995 to 14-4-1995 in pursuance of an agreement executed on 20-3-1995 with DP&SC. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide its reply dated 24-12-1997 declared the total cost of construction by all the co-owners at Rs. 4,60,714 inclusive of Rs. 96,668 by the assessee. In support of cost of construction, the assessee furnished the Valuation report dated 31-10-1997 of a registered Valuer, who had estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 4,59,614. In order to ascertain the correctness of the total cost of the construction, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hom the assessee alleged to have purchased bricks. The Assessing Officer also negatived the claim of the assessee that she had incurred Rs. 48,440 as an additional expenditure. 3.1 Considering the above facts, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 82,210 on proportionate basis. 4. When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) in appeal, the assessee contended before him that estimate of cost of construction has been made by the Valuation Officer by adopting very high rates of different materials used for constructing the plinths. The assessee has constructed plinths with area admeasuring 13340.75 sq.mts. and one sq.mt. requires 50 bricks for construction as per actual counting by the Inspector of the Department against 54 bricks ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. It was also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer did not agree to the expenditure incurred of Rs. 48,440 in the financial year 1996-97. It is stated that the Inspector, Food & Supplies, Jalalabad (West) has certified vide his letter dated 16-11-1998 that the road of the said plinth was completed by the end of the calendar year 1997. In other words, the expenditure in constructing the road was incurred till 31st March, 1997 i.e., in the financial year 1996-97. All the above information was furnished before the Assessing Officer. It was claimed that the Assessing Officer arbitrarily ignored the claim of the assessee and had determined the cost of construction incurred at Rs. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the same at Rs. 111 per 1000. Similarly the AVO has not given any rebate on account of self-supervision when the same is generally allowed at 10%. Further in the case of M/s. JMP Enterprises the Ld. ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Third Member Bench vide their order dated 12-7-1993 reported on page No. 421 of the Selected Orders of the Tribunal have held that for the difference of opinion in the estimation of value of cost of construction a margin of 10% would meet the ends of justice in view of the fact that there is estimation in the value of cost of construction. Similarly the appellant has incurred expenditure in the cost of construction of plinths during the financial year 1996-97 as is evident from the certificate of the Inspector, Food & S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Less : 10% rebate on account of self supervision 57700 Net value 519300 As against the net value as mentioned above Rs. 5,19,300, the appellant has shown the value of the same at Rs. 5,09,154 and there remains a very little and insignificant difference of only Rs. 10,146 which is reasonable and can be ignored for a construction of Rs. 5,77,000. Accordingly, the addition made at Rs. 82,210 is held to be made not on sound footing which is unable to stand the test of appeal. Accordingly the addition so made stands deleted." 6. Before us, Shri S.C. Pahwa, the learned D.R. heavily relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and further submitted that the obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders of the authorities below. At the very outset, we made it clear that the order of the CIT(A) is based on correct appreciation of the facts and, therefore, requires no interference at our level. It is well established fact that the assessee had used first class, second class and third class bricks in constructing the plinths, which is duly certified by the Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, Jalalabad (West) vide his certificate dated 16-11-1998 addressed to the Assessing Officer. If we carefully go through the order of the CIT(A), it would also be clear that the Assessing Officer has taken labour charges of laying the bricks at a higher rate i.e., @ Rs. 347 per 1000 of bricks whereas the prevailing rate was Rs. 120 per 1000 of brick....