2005 (3) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring a total income of Rs. 59,210 which was processed under section 143(1)(a) on March 31, 1998, on the returned income. Subsequently, and with the prior approval of the competent authority, a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was issued. The assessee attended the proceedings in furtherance of the said notice. Documents including the map plan of the property were also filed. The cost of construction was shown as Rs. 5,50,000 for 4000 sq. ft. approximately, giving the rate of Rs. 140 per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer felt that normally the cost of construction should be Rs. 500 per sq. ft. and he rejected the accounts produced by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estimation clearly lacked factual support. Thus, we sustain the conclusions drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard. The Revenue, accordingly fails on this ground also. Ground No. 3: The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,91,000 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained investment in the property No. 2059, Outram Lanes, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. The facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee purchased the ground floor of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000 and sold it for Rs. 2,90,000 thereby earning a short-term capital gain of Rs. 15,000. From a perusal of purchase and sale deeds, the Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee remodelled the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the impugned addition, albeit on different grounds." The aforementioned findings recorded by the Tribunal are primarily findings of fact. The action of the authorities was held to be untenable. The Assessing Officer has obviously no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer in relation to cost of construction of the house property and furthermore, the report of the DVO is stated to have been not disputed. We see no reason to take a view different than one which has been taken by the Appellate Tribunal primarily on the factual matrix of the case. While relying upon the provisions of section 142A of the Act, learned counsel for the appellant contended that ....