Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
THE IDGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELID ITA.N o.275/2004 Judgment delivered on: 05.07.20CJ£ MIS SHIMLA COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. -venus- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE : 26 (6). Advocates who appeared in this case: : MrK.R. :Manjani .• .Petitioner _.Respondent For the Petitioner For Respondent : Mr Sandeep Sabh2rwal with Ms Rashimi Chopra CORAM:- HON'BLE :MR. JUSTICE B.C. PATEL, CIDEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) 1. Admit. At the request made by t1e ieatned counsel for the pa::L":ie-;_ 2004:DHC:12900-DB
i tlie matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Tlie following question is required to be determined by this court: Whether the rejection of books of accounts. Registered Valuer's Report and cost of constniction shown by the appellant and making addition of Rs.lO lakhs is without any basis or material and hence perverse? 3. The Assessment Order in question is of 1990-1991. On various grounds, the appellant before us, filed tlie appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal after hearing the matter remanded tliematter to the Assessing Officer in respect of some of the grounds. However, as regards tlie issue of the valuation of tlie property, the Tribunal observed as under: " There now is the report of the DVO and the report of the registered valuer of the assessee and the books of accounts and vouchers. We have perused minutely the order passed by tlie Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and we have already reproduced earlier the major points of difference. One course of action open to us is to restore the matter back to the file of any of the authorities to re-decide some of the factual aspects, but considering the fact that this would only prolong the litigation and since the matter is factual, the same can be disposed of by the Tribunal taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a question of one valuation report pitted against the other and both ITA.N0.275/2m4 , no. 2 of4 2004:DHC:12900-DB
cannot be wrong and on the same analogy both cannot be right. In some of the major differences, there is a large variation in the measurements, the quantity as also the rates and it is apparent that some of the points go in favour of the Revenue and yet others~ which are in favour of the assessee. Without saying anything further, we feel in the interest of justice that considering the entire spectrum of the case, it would be fair and reasonable in case an addition of Rs.lO,OO,OOO/- is sustained on all counts and the balance addition sustained by the Corrnnissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] to the tune of Rs. ll,C»,374/- is deleted. We direct accordingly.. This takes care of the grounds in appeal upto 6.1." 4. So far as grounds 7 and 8 were concerned, the Tr:ii::_:~=~: remanded the matter to give another opportunity to the asse=~~t When on one issue the matter was remanded, the Tribunal oug:-1":. t - have examined the question of 'laluation also in the same 1:2-~L more particularly, when the Tribunal has observed that bott ~1- reports cannot be wrong and on ·J1e same analogy both cannct ->~ right. It is also observed that there is a large variation i-= :.. -:. ~ measurements, the quantities as also the rates. It is also obs==-'·- ~.: that some points are in favour of the Revenue and son1e a::-e ~ - favour of the Assessee. 5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we are cc L: = opinion that without answering the question, the matter is reqL:.ir~.~, ITANa275120fJ4 ,o/ Pc;gc' c ' ' 2004:DHC:12900-DB
to be remanded to the Assessing Officer insofar as the Issu~ ~- valuation is concerned. The order of the Tribunal as regards the questicr valuation is set aside. To this exten~ the appeal is allowed witl-:: _-_ c order as to costs. July 05, 2004 m **ITA 275. 04.sxw"*llfinalll fTANo.275/2004 /?#f~ _: CHIEF JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,. J 2004:DHC:12900-DB