TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while taking into consideration the valuation report of D.V.O. which is erroneous and arbitrary as the rate of construction adopted by the D.V.O. is on higher side and based on estimate and assumption. 3) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while relying on the estimated cost of construction adopted by the DVO and has ignored the minimum unit rate of construction as per the notification dt. 22.09.2014 issued in pursuance of Rule-4 of the Delhi Stamp "Prevention of under valuation of instrument" rules 2018. 4) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring that the assessee had sold the unfurnished three floors to different vendees vide three different registered sale deed much before the D.V.O. visited the premises for preparation of his valuation report. The D.V.O. for preparation of his valuation report had ignored the fact that the above said vendees of three different floors furnished their respective floors out of their own funds and hence the valuation report made by D.V.O. is erroneous and arbitrary and does not support ground reality. 5) That the Ld. CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee and hence the estimated cost of construction computed by the D.V.O. should not be accepted as correct because the method adopted by D.V.O. Is not proper and based on assumptions and therefore it is prayed that such valuation should be declined and fresh valuation report should be obtained in order to provide justice to the assessee." ITA No.8759/Del/2019 for AY 2016-17 "1) That Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while upholding an addition of Rs. 19,68,404 (i.e. difference between estimated value of construction of Rs. 24,93,404 adopted by D.V.O. and of Rs. 5,25,000 out Rs. 13,50,000 actually incurred by the assessee) u/s 69 of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while taking into consideration the valuation report of D.V.O. which is erroneous and arbitrary as the rate of construction adopted by the D.V.O. is on higher side and based on estimate and assumption. 3) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while relying on the estimated cost of construction adopted by the DVO and has ignored the minimum unit rate of construc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivities under taken during the FY 2015-16 to 2017-18 as the same may fluctuate according to the nature of construction activities taken in different financial years. 8) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring that the DVO also while valuing the cost of construction has not given any option of method of valuation to assessee for choosing one of the methods. 9) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) had erred in law and on facts while not alloying the cost of construction of Rs. 8,25,000 out of Rs. 13,50,000 with the contention that this money was received from her husband inspite of the fact that all the sources of Rs. 8,25,000 in the hand of spouse of the assessee alongwith documentary evidences were properly disclosed. PRAYER: In view of the above, it is to state that the estimated cost of construction of Rs. 24,93,404 by D.V.O. is not justified and far excess them Rs. 13,50,000 as declared by the assessee and hence the estimated cost of construction computed by the D.V.O. should not be accepted as correct because the method adopted by D.V.O. Is not proper and based on assumptions and therefore it is prayed that suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d into between Assessee and Builder. Basically, this Annexure-A is specification for re-development construction and furnishing work. However, due to dispute between the assessee and Builder, the Annexure-A was never executed and hence to rely on this specification by the D.V.O. for computing estimated cost of construction is improper and unjustified. 7) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts while ignoring the comments of DVO on page no. 3 of his valuation report in which it has also been mentioned that while preparing the valuation report information was gathered by surveying the area opposite column "Reference to sale, instances / land rate date relied on and their relevance". However no such information was provided to assessee even weighted cost index and yearwise construction calculation in the valuation report of DVO is not backed and supported by any evidences and legitimate material regarding the nature of construction activities under taken during the FY 2015-16 to 2017-18 as the same may fluctuate according to the nature of construction activities taken in different financial years. 8) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- 46,17,578/- 21,17,578/- (ii) 2015-16 13,50,000/- 0 24,93,404/- 24,93,404/- (iii) 2016-17 42,19,483/- 0 77,93,310/- 77,93,310/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15/05/2019 for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the assessee preferred the Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide common order dated 13/09/2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the common order of the CIT(A) dated 13/09/2019, the assessee preferred the present appeals on the grounds mentioned above. 5. None appeared for the assessee, a written submission has been filed by the assessee in support of the Grounds of Appeals which reads as under:- "a) That my above said submission and paper books should be accepted for the purpose of hearing. b) That in my case estimated cost of construction computed by D.V.O is very high as compared to valuation made by registered government valuer and report was submitted to Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also not in accordance with the minimum rate of construction as adopted and published by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rates as adopted vide the stamp duty rules. This not having been done, it is not possible to accomplish the said feat at this stage." 7. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. A search and survey operation u/s 132/133A of the Income Tax Act were conducting on 06/05/2016 and subsequent dates in the case of the assessee along with other cases of Sh. Ramesh Chander Aastha and other Group Companies of cases at various residential and business premises. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee filed return of income declaring Rs. 3,17,840/-.as income. At the time of the search and survey operation conducted on 06/05/2016, a Four storied residential complex was under construction on the Plot at A-111 Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi, since the plot purchased in the name of the assessee vide sale deed dated 24/02/2014, the assessee was asked to provide details of investment made in the construction of the said property. In response, the assessee replied as under:- "The construction of the house was done by the assessee along with her husband Shri. Ramesh Chander Aastha. Kunal Verma invested ....