2013 (1) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... At the outset, it has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that the appeal is barred by limitation since it has been filed after delay of 38 days in filing. In this regard, the contention of the assessee as stated in condonation petition is that the assessee's counsel has undergone cataract operation in the left eye. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation prescribed. The submissions raised by the assessee have not been seriously controverted by the Revenue. 3. We have considered the issue of delay above said and gone through the petition. Since the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit have neither been denied nor controverted by the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the assessee has explained th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndisputed facts of the case are that the assessee is an "individual", who earns rental income. For the impugned assessment year, he filed his return on 16.05.2007 declaring income of Rs. 1,10,880/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 17.07.2007. In the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, the assessee had constructed a building and estimated its cost at Rs. 17,80,200/-. In the assessment proceedings of succeeding assessment year i.e. 2008-09, the Assessing Officer had referred the valuation of the construction to the DVO who valued the construction cost at Rs. 41,71,518/-. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the difference in the cost of construction as stated by the assessee as well as that ascertained by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence to the DVO and his arguments in this regard have been considered by the CIT(A). After considering the arguments in detail, we are of the view that in the paper book, the assessee has not enclosed his ground of appeal raised before the CIT(A). In the absence of Form 35 which was filed before the CIT(A) containing assessee's grievances, we are unable to accept assessee's submissions. Similarly, even in arguments raised before the CIT(A), the assessee's contention was that the DVO had wrongly relied upon the CPWD rates so as to determine the cost of construction instead of State PWD rates. The said plea of the assessee stands accepted. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to support its contention by way of any mat....