TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Bai, Shri.Shivlal and Smt.Sadhana Bai had together purchased a property during the financial year 1999-2000 for a total consideration of Rs. 58,49,320/-. The share of each of the assessee in the said consideration was Rs. 14,62,330/-. The building in the said property was demolished and a new house was constructed in the land during April, 2001 to March, 2004. During the course of regular assessment of Shri.Shivlal, the Assessing Officer called upon him to submit the details of cost of construction of the building, namely, Door No.87, Mint Street, Chennai - 79. The valuation made by the registered valuer was furnished by the assessee and in the valuation report, the value of the building was shown as Rs. 74.85 lakhs. The details of const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income Tax (Appeals), who reduced the addition in respect of each of the assessee to a lesser amount and spread this addition to various assessment years, namely, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both the assessees as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of both sides was of the view that in determining the cost of construction, which is the main plank of the assessees' case, the issue was whether the cost of construction should be based on CPWD rates or the rates prescribed by the State Public Works Department. The Tribunal accepting the contention of the assessee reman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to various assessment years. We find that the Tribunal has considered the issue in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the order, which reads as follows: "15. Coming to the second aspect raised by the Revenue in their appeals that CIT (Appeals) did not have any power for giving direction for another year, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Nath (Supra), has clearly held at para 7 of its judgment as under:- "7. The expressions "finding" and "direction" are limited in meaning. A finding given in an appeal revision or reference arising out of an assessment must be a finding necessary for the disposal of the particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular case assessee and in relation to the particular assessment year. To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under s.143 or s.144 or s.147: ITO vs.Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 2335 (SC): TC51R.2168 and N.K.T.Sivalingam Chettiar vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 586 (SC) : TC51R.2041. The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of s.147(1) into those of s.153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of s.153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point." When assessee himself claims that the construction was spread over to two to three years, in our opinion, the finding of the CIT(Appeals) that addition, if any, made for unexplained cost of construction, has ....