TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and running a small retail shop carrying on business of purchase and sale of utensils under the name and style of M/s Gaurav's Jain Steel Centre. The assessee had not submitted any return of income from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards. There was a survey operation U/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was carried out at the shop of the assessee on 13/2/2008. During the course of survey, purchase/sale bills, other vouchers and loose papers etc. for the financial year 2003-04onwards were found and these were impounded. The assessee was neither maintaining books of account nor the books were found during the survey. The stock was inventorised and it was val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, ground floor of the house and first floor up to lintern stage was constructed. The roof of first floor was not casted, construction done was also unfinished and outer work of house pavements etc. were to be constructed. The assessee stated that up to 13/2/2008 approximately Rs. 15.00 lacs expenditure was incurred on construction. It is pleaded that the assessee stopped construction work just after survey and restarted the construction work again during assessment year 2009-10 and remaining construction work was completed during the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14. It is claimed that this fact was evident from the books of account maintained by the assessee wherein the investment in the construction has been shown in the relevant financial years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer in response to the notice U/s 142(1) of the Act and the details of the amount disclosed year wise is as under:- A.Y. 2008-09 July 2007 to 31/3/2008 Rs. 15,00,000/- A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 70,000/- A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 68,500/- A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 65,000/- A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 1,90,000/- A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 2,30,000/- Rs. 21,23,500/- The ld AR submitted that the house was completed during the F.Y. 2013- 14. The assessee got its house valued by a registered valuer in the construction done in F.Y. 2007-08 and further during the year 2010-11 and the registered valuer valued the construction of the house as under:- F.Y. 2007-08 Rs. 15,07,744/- F.Y. thereafter till 2010 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er deduction for self supervision was allowed @ 10%. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Mahajan (2014) 50 taxmann.com 206 (P&H) has held that deduction up to 30% on account of applying CPWD rates in place of State PWD rates and 15% deduction for self supervision is justified. Such view was also upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja R. Govind Rajan (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 526 (Mad). He further submitted that the allocation of total cost valued by A.V.O. in the ratio of construction in F.Y. 2007-08 at 86.137% and in A.Y. 2010-11 @ 13.877% is not justified due to construction period was beyond that also and the cost of construction must have be allocated for the F.Y. 2007-08, 2008-....