Income Tax

No Addition for upto 10 percent difference in DVOs report and investment shown by the assessee-ITAT

No Addition for upto 10 percent difference in DVOs report and the amount of investment shown by the assessee which is liable to be ignored – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1277 (2017) (06) ITAT

The Grievance:
The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax  (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming the order of the Assesseing Officer (‘AO’) of addition made on the basis of report of Departmental Valuation Officer (‘DVO’).

Assessment Year : 2008-09
Date/Month of Pronouncement: June, 2017

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:
Honest Group of Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. CIT

Brief Facts of the Case:
The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,03,890/-. Subsequently a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was carried out at the business premises of the assessee and certain documents were impounded which revealed that the assessee, along with his wife had purchased a land on which a hotel was constructed. As a result, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148.

The Assessing Officer referred the matter of determination of the value of construction of this hotel/banquet to the DVO. As per the DVO’s report, the assessee spent a sum of Rs. 5,15,578/-on construction of this hotel during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.5,15,578/-.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the first appeal. The assessee being aggrieved against this addition was in second appeal before the ITAT.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
It was observed that the AO had made an addition of Rs.5,15,578/- on the basis of the report of DVO which indicated that the assessee has spent this much amount on construction of hotel/banquet during the year. The assessee had himself declared an investment of Rs. 4,92,380/- in the relevant assessment year.

It was noted that the total investment spreading over five years declared by the assessee, as mentioned in the Valuation Report, stood at Rs. 3,65,47,888/- as against the estimate made by the DVO for a total sum of Rs. 3,97,48,433/- and the AO had accepted the genuineness of investment made in the construction.

The Tribunal opined that there was no reason for sustaining any addition in the year under consideration as the DVO in his report had recorded that the assessee has declared investment of Rs. 4.92 lac against his estimate of cost of construction at Rs. 5.15 lac for the year, which was less than 10%.

The ITAT placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble J&K High Court in which it was held that difference upto 10% in the DVO report and the amount shown by the assessee is liable to be ignored.

It was seen that the overall difference between the investment declared by the assessee at Rs. 3.65 crore and as estimated by the DVO at Rs. 3.97 crore was less than 10% of the DVO’s estimate. As such, no addition is called for.

Held:
The addition was ordered to be deleted.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT

Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…

3 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC

Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…

5 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation

When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…

7 hours ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination

ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A

Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

Corporate guarantees executed by corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC

Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…

1 day ago