Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a regular return of income for AY 2014-15. Based on information about the construction of a house, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued, and a return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The AO completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 23,35,043/-, making an addition of Rs. 20,95,043/- as unexplained investment based on the DVO's report.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee is aggrieved by the DVO's report, and a separate appeal lies before the Ld. CIT(A). The validity of the DVO's report cannot be challenged in an appeal against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee is at liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against the DVO's report.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made on account of the value of construction based on the DVO's report is valid when the assessee has a separate remedy against the DVO's report.
Sections Cited
142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(2) of the Act, 143(3) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad [CIT(A)] dated 30.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. No regular return of income for the AY 2014-15 was filed by the assessee. The ITO, Ward-1 & TPS, Guruvayoor (for short, 'AO') based on the information that the assessee constructed doubled Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar storeyed house at a cost of Rs. 50-60 lakhs, issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') calling upon the assessee to file return of income for the AY 2014-15. In response to the notice issued, the assessee filed his return of income on 26/02/2016 declaring income of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29/12/2016 passed u/s. 143(2) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 23,35,043/-. While doing so, the AO made the addition of Rs.20,95,043/- as unexplained investment in the residential house, based on the valuation report submitted by the DVO on the cost of construction.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO for the failure of the assessee to prove the source of cost of construction.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
It is submitted that the Valuation Officer has not valued the actual cost of construction house. The actual cost of construction was only Rs. 22,00,000/-. In support of this, assessee has filed copy of permission for digging of well issued on 03/12/2008 and the copy of application for electricity dated 29/01/2009 etc.
Puliyambra Subramanian Udayakumar 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR supporting the orders of the lower authorities and requested no interference is called for.
I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record.
The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made on account of value of construction based on DVO’s report. The assessee is aggrieved by the DVO’s report, a separate appeal lies before the Ld. CIT(A). The validity of DVO’s cannot be challenged in the appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the assessee is at liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against the DVO’s report. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the assessee, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025.