TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2013, determining its income at Rs. 10,37,42,230/-. 2. Effective ground of appeal is about addition of Rs. 28.65 lakhs made u/s. 69C of the Act. During the course of hearing,the AO directed the assessee to furnish various details in respect of addition to its fixed assets. In its response, the assessee submitted factory-plan,erection certificates, certificates of the architect and bills relating to architect fee for plant etc. from the perusal of certificate of the architect, the AO observed that the architect estimated his fees based on the project cost of Rs. 8 crores, that the assessee had shown a total project cost at around Rs. 5 crores.He asked the assessee to explain as to why the project cost should not be taken at Rs. 8 crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s services rendered as per the agreement, that in the bill raised on 11/03/2010 the estimated cost of project was erroneously mentioned at Rs. 8 crores, that the assessee noted that the bill of the consultant was not as per agreement, that the facts were brought to the notice of the consultant, that corrections were made in the bills, that the consultant had never issued any certificate stating that the cost of the project was Rs. 8 crores, that there was an inadvertent mistake on part of the consultant, that the errors was rectified in the bill and payments were made accordingly, that the assessee had obtained written clarification from the consultant with respect to clerical error in one of the bills, that in the subsequent financial year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shown by the assessee at Rs. 6.37 crores for the year under consideration. He directed the AO to consider the estimated cost of investment for the year under consideration as per valuation report given by the DVO and the differential only be considered for addition in the computation of total income instead of Rs. 3 crores. 4. Before us,the Authorised Representative(AR) contended that no mistake was found in the books of accounts of the assessee, that addition u/s.69C was made on estimate basis, a reference can be made,for determining the fair market value and not for determining the cost of the of construction,that the issue in the case under consideration was to determine the cost of construction. He referred to page five of the paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 9.06 crores as on 31.3.12 was not reliable.Para-C of page 8 of PB talks of value of the work for which consultancy was to be paid and the estimated cost is mentioned at Rs. 5 crores.Page10 and11 of the PB are bills of the architect. In both the bills the amount mentioned is Rs. 5 crores.Pg-17 and 18 is the letter of the architect dt.13.6.13 wherein it had clarified the position about the value of property.It has been specifically mentioned in that letter that total cost of building upto 31.3.10 was Re.3.67crores.Besides,the assessee had given year-wise break up of expenditure made for construction of building and had capitalised the same.The accounts of the assessee were audited. In our opinion,there was no justification after letter of ....