TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T (A) of Rs. 34.51,400/-, for the so called unexplained investment in construction of building is perverse, arbitrary, wrong and illegal. 1.2 Because in any view, the reference u/s 142A for valuation of property confirmed by the ld., CIT (A) is wrong and illegal. 1.3 Because in any view, ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the ground of challenging the impugned addition made u/s 69. 1.4 Because in any view, the CPWD rates have wrongly been applied by the D.V.O. in place of the UPPWD rates as held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court 182 ITR, 436 C.I.T.-Vs.-Raj Kumar. 1.5 Because in any view, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in not accepting the item-wise valuation report of the Government Approved Registered Valuer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, Agra has furnished his report dated 23.12.2009 and he has estimated year-wise value of the college building as under:- (Page no.2) Financial Year Cost declared by the assessee Cost estimated by the Valuation Officer 2001-02 768058 2171825 2002-03 2755678 7792185 2003-04 1153692 3262276 2004-05 1326732 3751578 2005-06 1178919 3333610 2006-07 1888402 5339803 2007-08 1032466 2919487 2008-09 186243 526636 Total 10290190 29097400 4. The A.O. noticed that there was considerable difference between the value declared by the assessee and estimated made by valuation Officer. The A.O. sent a copy of valuation report to assessee and asked fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been concluded that assessee has not disclosed actual investment in the college building in the books of account and assessee's books of account are not reliable. Assessee has made investment in the College building out of undisclosed sources for which no explanation has been filed. Hence an addition of Rs. 34,51,401/- is made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in the net taxable income of the assessee. Income of the assessee is computed as under :- Total income as per para 26 of part B of the ITR-7 Rs. Zero Addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Rs. 34,51,401/- Total Rs. 34,51,401/-" 6. Before the CIT (A) the assessee raised many issues which were decided by the CIT(A) after obtaining report from the A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly maintained, audited and the Audit Report has been duly filed. The books of account have not been rejected and assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The complete details of Building Accounts have been maintained, thus the reference to DVO not valid. 12. The learned Authorised Representative has also made submission and objection regarding valuation report of the Department. The D.V.O. has applied CPWD rates whereas rates enlisted of UPPWD are 15% to 20% lesser. He further submitted that supervision charges should be allowed at 10% instead of 7%. The ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the objections which were made before the CIT (A). 13. The ld. Authorised Representative in support of this contention r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration, we noticed that books of account has not been rejected by the A.O. though mention was made in his order that considering huge difference in valuation report and books of account, book is not reliable. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish item-wise details. But these findings are not sufficient for invoking section 145 (3) of the Act. The cost estimated by the Valuation Officer is simply an opinion and based on which it can not be said that book is not reliable. The details are available in books of accounts maintained regularly on day-to-day basis. Merely on non-furnishing of bifurcation/or details, it cannot be held that book is not reliable. For rejecting books of accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 or under Section 10(23C) of the Act. The CIT(A) by relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orrisa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 237 ITR 589 (SC) and order of I.T.A.T. Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Smt. Soeda Educational Society, ITA No. 237 & 238/H/2010, order dated 21.04.2011, rejected the assessee's contention. On the other hand, the assessee relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Raunaq Education Foundation, 294 ITR 76 (Delhi) where after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 237 ITR 589 (SC), it has been held as under :- ....