2007 (6) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench "C", Chennai in I.T.A. No.1273/Mds/2006 dated 28.09.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in restricting the addition under Sec.69D ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.14,96,840/-.  While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,97,221/- under the head "Unexplained Investment" under Section 69B of the Act.  Aggrieved by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onstruction was carried out over a period of 5 years, i.e. from the April, 1992 to April, 1997.  In view of this the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the excess in cost of construction in one year is not correct.  I am of the view that the addition u/s 69B for unexplained investment should be spread over the period of construction in proportion to investment made in the imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, invoices etc. towards purchase of construction materials, the Departmental Valuation Officer did not allow rebate towards self supervision.  Hence the cost of construction made by the Assessing Officer is in conformity with law.  5. Heard the counsel.  The assessee admitted the cost of construction at Rs.47,42,629/-, whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the sam....