- (1.) IN Tax Appeal No. 35 of 2000, following substantial question of law was framed on 1st Feb., 2001 : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding the substantive addition has to be made in the hands of the assessee Smt. Diwari Ben Vagadia and not in the hands of the firm for the asst. yr. 1992-93 when the facts of the case clearly indicated otherwise ?"
(2.) IN another appeal, there is a difference of amount and the year i.e. 1993-94. The facts are not disputed that one piece of plot was purchased by the respondent-assessee and the area of that plot is 0.2 acres. The property was purchased on 3rd Sept., 1987 for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000 and on half of the portion, a house was constructed and the assessee disclosed the investment to the tune of Rs. 1,12,832 in the asst. yr. 1992-93 and Rs. 6,51,223 for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The AO, after obtaining the opinion of the valuer held that the construction cost of the property cannot be Rs. 7,64,055, as disclosed by the assessee in her written submission submitted for the year 1993-94 but the actual construction cost of the property is Rs. 34,72,800. On the basis of this, the assessment order was passed by the AO on different dates of two different years, which were subjected to appeal before the Tribunal. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the AO also held that in fact, the said investment was made by the firm, M/s Natwarlal Sukhlal and Brothers, which was the firm of the assessee's husband. It is further relevant to mention here that the order of the AO was challenged by the aforesaid firm also and the appeal of the firm was allowed by the CIT(A) by a brief order and in the light of the reasons given in the appeal of the firm, the CIT(A) decided other matters. The matter was then taken up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue. Hence these appeals have been preferred by the Revenue.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law and the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal by presuming that the AO had not rejected the report of the valuer, which was produced by the Revenue and it is submitted that the Tribunal has also observed that the valuation report given by the assessee is not also complete. In view of the above reasons, the Tribunal has committed error of law by accepting the report given by the valuer whose report was produced by the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the report of the valuer which was produced by the assessee was ante-dated and therefore, if that report was rejected on this ground also, the AO has not committed any illegality.;