TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved in this matters are similar, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that during the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference in the cost of construction disclosed by the respondent as against the cost worked out as per the prevailing market rates by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The difference was, therefore, added to the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition by relying upon the decision in the case of the respondent-assessee for the year 1984-85. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal relying u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... added a sum of Rs. 10,77,724/under section 69B of the Act being assessee's unexplained investment. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT (Appeals) on facts analysed the case of the assessee again and retained part of the addition, but granted partial relief. This order of CIT (Appeals) gave rise to two appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal deleted entire addition primarily on the ground that the Assessing Officer could not have made reference to the DVO without reference to the books of accounts and such reliance on the DVO's books of accounts was not justified. The Tribunal held and observed as under : &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) has not considered the fundamental questions as pointed out by the assessee that there was no material, what to say an incriminating material, in the possession of the Revenue Department, therefore, the entire addition being merely based upon the estimation of DVO was baseless; hence, deserves to be deleted. We hold accordingly. The part addition sustained by learned CIT (A) is hereby deleted." 5. It is undisputed that the Assessing Officer made a reference to the DVO without rejecting the books of accounts. While retaining part of the additions even the CIT (Appeals) did not come to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the Assessing Officer does not appear to have ascertained the correctness or otherwise of the cost of construction shown by the assessee in its books of account. Thus, prior to making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer has not ascertained as to what was the defect in the cost of construction disclosed by the assessee in its returns of income. Moreover, it is apparent that the only reason for making the addition under section 69 of the Act is that there is a difference in the cost of construction as determined by the Valuation Officer and as shown by the assessee. At no stage of the assessment proceedings does the Assessing Officer appear to have mentioned that the books of account are defective or that the cost....