TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e income declared by the respondent-assessee, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.From the facts as recorded, it appears that the respondent- assessee constructed flats at Old Mahabalipuram Road. The construction commenced in the Financial Year 2006-07 and was completed in the Financial Year 2008-09. The expenditure relating to Financial Year 2009-10 relates to unfinished work, such as flooring, lift, electric and other miscellaneous work. 3.In the course of assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the District Valuation Officer for estimation of the cost of construction. By a letter dated 31.01.2011, the District Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 48,45,39,000/-. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... book figure and the estimate of the District Valuation Officer was only 6.85%. Statutorily, a reference to the District Valuation Officer might be made, only if, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the difference would exceed 15%. The Commissioner of Income Tax observed that margin of 15% was thus, an accepted norm in cases of valuation of property. 7.Before the learned Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the respondent-assessee that the District Valuation Officer had estimated the cost of construction, ignoring the fact that after construction, the assessee had sold the flats to individual customers, who had made additional construction or improvements in the building and the cost of such additional construction or improvement coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 643 (Andhra Pradesh). The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that for probing into the valuation of investment and the source of money for such investment, Section 142A(1) does not require that the Assessing Officer should first reject the books of accounts as a pre-condition for enquiring into the valuation of investments. The Division Bench further went on to add that no formal order rejecting the books of account was necessary, when there is no sufficient material or information to arrive at the fair market value of the investments so made. 12.However, the judgment o....