AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition on account of investment in building construction considering it as an unexplained investment of Rs. 1,14,75,042/-." 2. Firstly, Ground No.1 was not pressed during the course of hearing. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Regarding Ground No.2 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 46,200/- on account of income from house property. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee in her return of income has declared gross rental income at Rs. 84,000/- and after deduction u/s 24(a), offered the net income at Rs. 58,800/-. The AO however, estimated the rental income at Rs. 1,50,000/- and after deduction u/s 24(a) at Rs. 1,05,000/-, determined net rental income at Rs. 1,05,000. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 46,200/-(1,05,000-58,800). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that assessee has not brought on record as to how the estimation made by AO is not incorrect. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that there is no basis with the AO to estimate the rental income at Rs. 1,50,000/- as against Rs. 84,000/- declared by the assessee. This rental income declared in AY 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. 10. The facts of the case are that proceeding u/s 147 were initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 on the basis of information available with the AO that the assessee has made investment in purchase of land at Rs. 15,00,000/- and has also made investment of Rs. 1 crore approx. in the construction of building known as Pawan Tower on the said plot of land namely, Plot No.- B, situated at Bekunt Nagar, (B-2, Venkeshwar Colony), Sodala, Jaipur. The assessee has not challenged the basis of the reopening of assessment proceedings before the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the department valuation cell and the Valuation Officer vide his report dated 23.01.2015 has estimated the investment in the construction of 5 storey building known as Pawan Towers at Rs. 1,14,75,402/-. A copy of the valuation report was shared with the assessee and in absence of any response or explanation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer went head and completed the assessment wherein the said amount was brought to tax as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 11. The Assessing Officer, on going through the statement of affairs of the assessee as on 31.3.2007,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer, the AO has come to a conclusion that the investment/expenditure in the construction of Pawan Tower has been made during the F.Y 2006-07. 14. The AO has also relied on the valuation report wherein for the FY 2006-07, the cost of investment has been worked by the Valuation Officer at Rs. 1,14,75,402. Here it would be relevant to refer to the report of the Valuation Officer dated 23.01.2015 which is available at APB pages 43 to 56. In the Valuation Report, the Valuation Officer has stated that as per letter of ITO Ward- 2(4), the year of construction of property has been considered as FY 2006-07. Further, at page No. 56 of APB which is cost calculation sheet and part of the Valuation Report, the contents thereof reads as under:- " Period of construction 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 (Assumed) Approved cost Index of year 2006 = 213 Approved cost Index of year 2007= 237 As per AO's reference letter, AO has informed date of inauguration as Dusehera 2006 and year of construction during 2006-07, it is presumed that construction was completed by 31.03.2007. Cost index for period of 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006= 213 x 0.75 159.75 Cost index for period of 01.01.2007 to 31.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion officer and the year of construction so considered by the valuation officer. Here, it is also relevant to note that the valuation so determined by the valuation officer has considered Cost index for period of 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 and Cost index for period of 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 and basis that, he has determined Weighted Average Cost Index for 2006-07 which is then used to work out the value of investment in the building. Having not contested the valuation so determined, the assessee has thus not contested the year of construction as financial year 2006-07 which has been considered by the valuation officer and finally by the Assessing officer. 16. We now refer to the appellate proceedings before the ld CIT(A) wherein the assessee has again not filed any written submission/explanations or contested the valuation report. The ld. CIT(A) has however, relied on the submissions filed in the case of husband of the assessee, Shri Rameshwar Lal Kumawat where a similar addition has been made on substantive basis and referring to the submission so filed therein wherein it was submitted by Shri Rameshwar Lal Kumawat that the investment in Pawan Tower was made prior to FY 2005-06 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rameshwar Lal Kumawat has relied upon the above referred order of Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur and stated that during the FY 2005-06 only renovation work was done and no construction was made in 'Pawan Tower'. It may be mentioned that the Civil Suit was filed by the appellant before the Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur for issue of restraint order to the Jaipur Nagar Nigam Nigam for not demolishing the renovation work done by the appellant in 'Pawan Tower'. It may be mentioned that the Addl. Civil Judge issued the restraint order for not demolishing the work at 'Pawan Tower' as it was not proved that the said building was unauthorizely occupied/ constructed on the government land by the appellant and not for determination of whether any construction or renovation work was being carried out by the appellant during the FY 2005-06. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order of Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur as under:- (viii) The statement of affairs of the appellant for the year ending on 31.03.2006 has already been reproduced earlier in this order wherein the appellant has shown investment in land at Rs. 15 lac which means that the 'Pawan Tower' was not constructed during F.Y 2005-06. Thus,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y wall was existing on the plot of land. Though the area of construction and number of floors comprised in the residential building is not mention but no evidence is otherwise brought on record by the lower authorities that the property comprising of number of floors was not in existence at the time of purchase of the property. 18. It was submitted that the fact that number of floors was constructed on the said property at the time of its purchase is evident from the order of Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur dt. 16.04.2008 wherein the facts relating to the case has been narrated. In fact the assessee was carrying out certain repair/renovation work on the said property but the officers of Jaipur Nagar Nigam on 12.01.2006 threatened to demolish the work and passed a restrained order to carry out any work. Against this order, assessee filed an appeal before Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur on 17.01.2006 for vacating the restrained order. At Pg 4 of this order, it is specifically mentioned that at the time of purchase, the ground floor, 4 shops and 3 rooms at the back of these shops and 3 stories on it were constructed. She has not carried out any new construction after 2004 but only repa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the restrained order for not demolishing the work and not for determination of when construction/ renovation work was carried out was misplaced in as much as when the assessee because of the restrained order was not in a position to carry out any construction work in FY 2006-07, then how it can be assumed that such construction was carried out during FY 2006- 07. His further observation that assessee has not disputed the investment of Rs. 1,14,75,042/- in the building under construction is also incorrect in as much as the husband of assessee has categorically stated in his submission that investment is made prior to FY 2005-06 as proved from the court order where it has been accepted that during FY 2005-06 only repair work was carried out and not any construction work. In view of the above evidences, it is proved beyond doubt that assessee has not made any construction on the said property during AY 2007-08 and any renovation work made thereon pertain to AY 2006-07, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 22. In view of the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the ld AR's submission, two documents in form of agreement to sell dated 8.8.2004 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of any communication from the Jaipur Development Authority or any Government record, the respondent has failed to discharge the necessary onus placed on it which proves that the subject disputed property belongs to the Government. It was further held that given that the physical possession over the disputed property is with the appellant, it is a settled principle that where a person claims ownership over the immoveable property even where he is illegally occupying the said property, it is only by following a legal process that he can be removed and asked to vacate the property. It was further held that without following the legal process, the respondent doesn't have a right to demolish the subject disputed property and to interfere in appellant right to peaceful use of the said property. 25. We thus find that there is no finding given by the ld. Additional Civil Judge in terms of the nature of the construction being carried out on 12.1.2006 when the employees of the respondent visited the appellant's premises or at the time of moving the petition by the appellant on 17.01.2006 - either in term of repair/renovation work of old residential building as claimed by the appellant or....