2014 (2) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press the cross-objection. Ld.CIT-DR has no objection. In view of the statement made by the ld.counsel for the assessee, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 3. Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal in IT(ss)A No.799/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief of Rs.8,25,356/- out of the total addition of Rs.8,95,531/- made u/s.69B on account of difference in cost of construction of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nly issue emerges is that whether the addition of Rs.895531/- made by AO towards the cost of construction of the appellant based on report of DVO is justified. In the present case, it is noticed that appellant has constructed a godown at Telav from AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 and total investment shown by the appellant in the books of accounts upto 31.3.2007 is Rs.15,07,525/-. The books of accounts of the appellant have been produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Details of construction cost incurred by the appellant are supported by bills and vouchers. Construction activity has been carried on from AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 in piecemeal basis and appellant has submitted year wise cost of construction incurred before AO v....