2026 (4) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment order dated 15.07.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since the cross-appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are having common and identical issues therefore, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided by a common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure action was carried out at the business and residential premises of Garg & Goyal Group of cases on 11.02.2019 and assessee was also a part of the group and the case was also covered. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were initiated and year under appeal being year of search, assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act were initiated. The assessee filed her return of income u/s 139(4)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 25% is given, there is no difference remained. However, the AO without appreciating the facts, has made the addition of INR 1,72,80,000/- being difference between the cost of construction declared at INR 82 Lakhs and estimated by DVO at INR 2,54,80,000/- and made the addition for the same. 4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has not only taken the arguments before the AO and also pointed out various defects in the valuation report of DVO. After considering the report of the DVO and the objections raised by assessee, Ld. CIT(A has re-compute the estimation of cost of construction at INR 2,03,07,193/- and cost as per books of accounts of the assessee was taken at INR 1,51,04,572/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of Rs. 2,54,80,000/-, without appreciating the fact that the DVO applied most appropriate method i.e. Cost Reproduction Method (DPAR 2012 & Cost Index method) while determining the cost of construction. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)-3, Noida has erred in estimating the value of property at Rs. 2,03,07,193/- and bifurcating the same in the 4 Α.Υ. 2019-20 & 2020- 21 respectively, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidences before the DVO to establish that the construction was made in two financial years. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add alter, adduce or amend or 5 any ground or grounds on or before the date o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that the AO during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), has accepted the defects pointed out by the assessee. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has considered the measurement of the house as per the report of the AO and the expenses for construction are taken on the basis of Profit & Loss Account. Ld. CIT(A) bifurcated the total cost of construction in two financial years in the ratio of cost of construction recorded in the books of account and benefit of self-supervision @ 7.5% was allowed. After considering the deductions, cost of construction was estimated at INR 2,03,07,193/- as against the cost recorded in the books of accounts at INR 1,51,04,572/- and estimated by DVO at INR 2,54,800/-. Here it is relevant to state that lower a....