BINOY KUMAR SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-2014-7-47
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 22,2014

Binoy Kumar Singh Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE seven appeals of the assessee arise from the different orders of CIT(A) -1, Patna, each dt. 22nd Feb., 2011 for the asst. yrs. 1999 -2000 to 2005 -06. The learned CIT(A) -1, Patna vide its consolidated order dt. 22nd Feb., 2011 has decided the appeals for the assessment years i.e., 1999 -2000 to 2002 -03. During the asst. yrs. 1999 -2000 to 2002 -03, the ground Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 are general in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication. In each of the four assessment years i.e., 1999 -2000 to 2002 -03, the ground Nos. 2 to 6 are related to difference in valuation of immovable property located at Raj Villa, Kanti Factory Road, Patna, against the additions sustained the learned CIT(A). Whereas the ground No. 7 in each of the four said assessment years relate to the addition confirmed on account of rental income i.e., income from house property with regard to the property at Raj Villa, Kanti Factory Road, Patna. Since ground Nos. 2 to 6 and ground No. 7 in each of the said four assessment years are identical except the amounts referred to therein, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 27/Asr/2011 for the asst. yr. 1999 -2000 and our decision hereinbelow for the asst. yr. 1999 -2000 shall be identically applicable in other assessment years i.e., 2000 -01, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03. The difference of amount in ground Nos. 2 to 6 with respect to asst. yr. 2000 -01 is Rs. 39,02,457, with respect to asst. yr. 2001 -02 the difference is Rs. 21,98,066 and for the asst. yr. 2002 -03, the difference is Rs. 9,73,871. Whereas with regard to ground No. 7, the difference is Rs. 8,18,998, Rs. 14,45,075 and Rs. 13,85,572 for the asst. yrs. 2000 -01, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 respectively. The assessee has raised ground Nos. 2 to 6 and ground No. 7 for the asst. yr. 1999 -2008 as under:
(2.) THAT the learned, CIT(A) has erred in not deleting addition of Rs. 4,00,285 on account of difference in value of immovable property located at Raj Villa, Kanti Factory Road, Patna and valued at Rs. 5,95,100 by learned DVO against the value of Rs. 1,94,815 as declared by the assessee.
(3.) THAT the learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting that the estimate of the cost of construction of the immovable property in question based on the DVO's report being a mere expression of his opinion rather than on any substantive material or evidence is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the plinth area rates on the lines appearing in the DVO's report and without considering and completely bypassing the report of the approved valuer though the same was on records and his notice specifically by the appellant. The estimate of the cost of construction without rejecting the appellant's specific objections to the DVO's report is thus equally arbitrary and unsustainable in law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.