TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which is Architect's certificate for valuation of construction at Rs. 59,48,600/-. The assessee's reliance is primarily on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (order dated 14.01.2011), 197 taxmann.com 128, wherein, it has been, inter-alia, held that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice and once the Tribunal forms an opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, the additional evidence should be admitted. Ld. DR strongly objected to the admission of additional evidence sought to be filed by assessee at this stage of proceedings and pointed out tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- Capital Loss Rs. 1,10,977/- 4. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of cost of construction claimed by him in construction of flats at Rs. 60,25,471/- with reference to books of account, bills and vouchers maintained by him. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's claim for the following reasons :- (a) The assessee expressed his inability to produce all bills and vouchers to support his claim for cost of construction except furnishing some of the bills of bricks, iron bars, wooden chowkhat and labours. (b) The Assessing Officer noted following discrepancies in the bills furnished by assessee :- (i) the assessee furnished two bills dated 23.10.2008 of M/s Babu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at Page No.11 of the sale-deed photo-graph of the building is shown. On the first look of this photo-graph even a layman can say that the Flats were ready on 04.05.2009 but the bill for as much as 17.490 M.T. or iron bars has been furnished which cannot be said to be used for the aforesaid construction. Such are other bills of cement dated 21.10.2009 (400 Bags) Rs. 91,200/-, dt.25.10.2009 (500 Bags) Rs. 1,14,000/- & 30.10.2009 (500 Bags) Rs. 1,14,000/- even these bills do not bear the mode of transportation of cement. (v) Order-sheet entry dated 18.02.2013 point no.6, the assessee was required to furnish the completion certificate of the flats from the GDA but the same was not furnished. (vi) The assessee did not file an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer which are in the written submissions reproduced in the ld. CIT(A)'s order from page 3 onwards. The assessee also pointed out that the Stamp Valuation Authority adopt the value on the basis of ready reckoner which prescribes area-wise flat rates. It was pointed out that the ready reckoner was being prepared and maintained by stamp authorities for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. It had no statutory force and it could not form a foundation to determine the value of an asset. It was further submitted that ready reckoner does not provide a realistic value of all the properties for the simple reason that there cannot be a rule of thumb in the matter of property prices. The details mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant. The AO has been reasonable in adopting the rate of Rs. 7500 per sq. meter for cost of construction which is the prescribed government rate. The order of the AO is confirmed. The ground of appeal no.1 is dismissed." 6. Ld. counsel referred to page 148 of Paper Book, wherein, details of all purchases made with name of parties, address, TIN Number, PAN Number, details of Item Purchased and Mode of Payment is given. Ld. counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer is not competent to make valuation of property and he should have referred the matter to an expert such as Government approved valuer or DVO. Ld. counsel further referred to ld. CIT(A)'s findings, as reproduced earlier, and po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal. The aforesaid rule is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that this evidence would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of ju....