2012 (7) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,69,83,383/- made by the A.O. u/s 69B of the Act, ignoring that:- i) the deletion of the addition is in contradiction to the findings at paras 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8 of the Ld.CIT(A)'s order. ii) Since the 2nd and 3rd floors of the complex were sold during the financial year 2004-05 the valuation certificate dt. 4.4.2005 giving the actual cost of construction can definitely be considered to be more relevant and genuine than the valuation certificate dt. 10.10.2005 showing the projected cost of construction. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (actual amount Rs. 1,55,00,000/-) made u/s 69B of the Act by not deciding entirely on merits the contentions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the year under consideration the assessee sold 2nd and 3rd floors. The assessee declared capital gains on the sale of 2nd and 3rd floors as detailed below. Sale consideration Rs.5,67,70,000 Cost of construction of 2nd and 3rd floors Rs.5,65,72,958   ------------------------   1,97,041   -------------------------   8.3. According to the AO the cost of construction was Rs. 3,95,84,575/- as per the valuer/architect certificate. Hence there is unexplained investment which is worked out as under. Cost according to the AO Rs.5,65,72,958 Less: Cost as per valuer's certificate 3,95,84,575 Difference ------------------------   1,69,88,383   -------------....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these findings. The total amount actually spent on the entire project by the assessee was Rs. 12.96 crores which included Rs. 3.95 crores on the second and third floor. The second Valuation Certificate dt. 10.10.2005 projected the cost of the 2nd and 3rd floors at Rs. 5.65 crores. This was just a projection whereas the actual amount incurred upto 31.3.2005 was Rs. 3.95 crores only. On these facts we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the A.O. was wrong in his presumption that the amount of Rs. 5.65 crores, was already spent before 31.3.2005. In the result, ground no.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to ground no.2, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has at para 12 of his order reconciled the amou....