TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me 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 to Rs.9.00 lakhs after spreading it over t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, 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 impugned building during the course of construction a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rials, 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 same at Rs.64,88,000/-. Hence there was a difference of va....