TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad passed in IT(SS) A No.828/AHD/2010 (for AY 200102), IT(SS) A No.849/AHD/2010 (for AY 200102), IT(SS) A.No.829/AHD/2010 (for AY 200203), IT(SS) A No.850/AHD/2010 (for AY 200203), IT(SS) A No. 836/AHD/2010 (for AY 200304) and CO No.16/AHD/2011 in IT(SS) A No.836/AHD/2010 (for AY 200304), the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law. "A.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the AO's action of invoking Section 142A of ht Act without rejecting books of accounts stating the cost of construction of residential property in question as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s against that shown in books at Rs. 64,51,242/. The DVO ascertained cost of land appurtenant to the house at Rs. 30,97,500/as on 13.10.2000 turning out to be much higher than that declared at Rs. 6,17,100/. The Assessing Officer therefor, adopted the DVO's value and as on 31.03.2005 as the basis for determining cost of construction on 31st March of each relevant previous year. That resulted in differential amount of cost of construction of Rs. 49,40,563/and Rs. 28,80,400/relevant to land cost being added to the total income of the assessee. 3.2. On an appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 14,68,810/on account of cost of construction and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 28,80,400/on account of land cost. Aggrieved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.0. Heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. Perused the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer which was made relying upon the DVO's report, the learned Tribunal has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 513 and it is held that before making a reference to the DVO under Section 142A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account and therefore, the reference under Section 142A of the Act itself was bad in law and therefore, DVO's report cannot ....