AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant has challenged the order of the Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 348/2002 which relates to the assessment year 1995-96. 4. The appellant assessee constructed a house in the city of Udaipur located at 9, Govindpura Colony. The construction was completed during the financial years 1993-94 to 1997-98. The said factual aspect has also been incorporated by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order. The cost of construction was referred to the valuation cell, Ajmer by the A. M. and the Valuation Officer has determined the cost of construction at Rs. 65,54,555, as per the details given in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97 and 1998-99 as against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relief of Rs. 3,61,158. For the year, i.e., 1995-96, the said relief was given at Rs. 4,67,732. The assessee thereafter challenged the said order before the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, in connection with two assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 and 1995-96. The two appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals by the common judgment. 9. It was argued before the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to reject the books of account and refer the matter to the DVO. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraph 4 of its judgment and it has been found that the Assessing Officer has already pointed out in paragraph 6 of the order that the assessee had not maintained proper details for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that no such ground was raised at any point of time before the appellate authority nor any such issue was raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal specially found in paragraph 4 of the order that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted the assessee's request with regard to the application of PWD rates and allowed the deduction of 20 per cent. from the valuation made on the basis of CPWD rates to scale it down so as to be at par with the State PWD rates. The said procedure was found to be consistently followed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. It is required to be noted that against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), even the Revenue had also preferred appeals as the Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion that when there are two cross-appeals, pending before the different authority or the Tribunal or the court, the efforts should be made to see that such appeals are heard together so that by a common judgment, the same can be decided. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that against the very impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred three appeals for different assessment orders which were dismissed by holding that deduction of 20 per cent. has been rightly given in favour of the assessee. It is required to be noted that there is no material on record to show that any request was made by the present appellant that his cross-appeals should be heard and decided together and the appellant allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal has valued the property adopting the rate of PWD. What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and that depends upon the material used, the location and the quality of construction. Therefore, straightaway, applying the PWD rate or CPWD rate is not justified in case of each house. What should be the cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD that is on the facts and circumstances of this case, which is part of the finding of fact. No interference is called for." 12. The question of valuation is essentially a question of fact and even at the cost of repetition, we may say that even that finding has been properly given by the authorities below by giving cogent reasons. We see no r....