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

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Form 3CD related to details regarding turnover, gross profit etc. for previous…

3 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT

Merely rectifying computation without amending assessment order without notice to assessee does not nullify the entire assessment  - ITAT In…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT

Once assessee discharges primary onus of providing basic documents in support of the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness it shifts…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII

CBDT has notified Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year / Tax Year 2026-27 CBDT has notified "384" as Cost Inflation…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) to remand case can be exercised only in best judgment assessment

Power of CIT(A) under section 251(1)(a) to remand case could be exercised only when the assessment is passed u/s 144…

6 days ago
  • ICAI

ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines, 2025 kept in abeyance

ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines, 2025 kept in abeyance In February 2026, ICAI had issued ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines 2025 to…

6 days ago