TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A)"] for the A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since the grounds raised by the assessee for both these appeals are identical in nature, these appeals are being clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being passed. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 135/VIZ/2023 for the A.Y. 2012-13 as the lead appeal. ITA No. 135/VIZ/2023 (A.Y. 2010-13) 2. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter in short "Ld. CIT(A)"] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051765108(1) dated 31.03.2023 for the A.Y.2012-13 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 27.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment is getting time barred on 31.03.2015. Ld. AO arrived at the difference in cost of construction and distributed it equally at Rs. 1,68,13,500/- for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee's representative challenged the additions and also raised ground with respect to the DVO report being time barred. Assessee also contested that no opportunity was provided to the assessee to raise objections with respect to DVO report. Considering the similar submissions made by the assessee and the objections raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by dismissing the appeal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has no authority to make such reference. 6. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the amended provisions of section142A of the IT Act operate from 01-10-2014, and thus do not apply to the present case, is misconceived and based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the section. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the IT Act as invalid, despite the said return being filed within the time prescribed under section 139(5) of the IT Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the petition filed by the assessee company under rule 46A of IT Rules, which contained material evidence pertaining to the cost of construction, without providing any reason for such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional defect and such order is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed." 8. The main grievance of the assessee is with respect to the Valuation Report made under section 142A of the Act by the DVO, Hyderabad. On this ground, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"] submitted that assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to provide the required information contesting the valuation made by the DVO. Ld.AR submitted that assessee has obtained the Valuation Report from a Registered Valuer valuing the property at Rs.1052.00 Lakhs which was not considered by the Revenue Authorities. He also further submitted that DVO while valuing the property has adopted CPWD rates but has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Revenue Authorities be upheld. 10. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record including the cases cited in the paper book and the Valuation Report. The Ld.AO made addition in two different assessment years towards difference between cost of construction estimated by the DVO and the cost of construction declared by the assessee. The DVO has considered plinth area rates (PAR 2007) approved by the CBDT. However, he has clearly stated that since there are no specifications floor heights, plinth heights available for these plinth area rates and hence the AP State Plinth rates cannot be adopted for evaluation of cost of construction. The DVO did not allow deduction towards difference in material c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill be Rs. 12,14,83,264/- as stated in table above. Further, the decisions relied on by the Ld.AR, it was consistently held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, and other judicial pronouncements we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for 15% deduction towards difference between CPWD rates and local rates and further 10% deduction towards Self-Supervision charges, from valuation made by DVO, we have no hesitation to direct the Ld. AO to determine the cost of construction of the building by allowing 15% and 10% respectively towards material difference and Self-Supervision charges. We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,68,13,500/- being the amount allocated by the Ld AO during the impugned AY, arising....