Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for unexplained investment in construction of a commercial property. While the assessee admitted a cost of Rs.44,44,745/-, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.6,61,86,825/-, based on a Valuation Officer's estimate of Rs.2,05,83,500/- which the CIT(A) later restricted to Rs.1,30,90,027/-. The assessee contended that the valuation did not consider supervision charges deduction and was based on incorrect rates.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the lower authorities failed to consider the 10% supervision charges deduction and other factors in the assessee's favor during valuation. Consequently, it further reduced the estimated cost of investment from Rs.1,30,90,027/- to a lump sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, providing a relief of Rs.30,90,027/- to the assessee. The Tribunal also stated this specific reduction should not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in construction was correctly made and whether the valuation of construction cost considered all relevant deductions and appropriate rates.
Sections Cited
Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. DCIT, Omnibus Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Plot-1, Phase-2, Meerut Meerut Bypass, Meerut Cantt, Ansal Town, Meerut PAN :AACCO0534A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Auyush Garg, CA Department by Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2024 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059017134(1), dated 22.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee, submits that the sole substantive issue, which arises for our adjudication is that our correctness of section 69 unexplained investment addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.6,61,86,825/- representing investment made in construction of a commercial property situated at Ansal Town, village Jitaoli, Pargana, Daurala, Tehsil Sardana, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 4. It emerges from a perusal of the assessment discussion at page 4 that the assessee had admitted his foregoing cost of construction Rs.44,44,745/- as against that estimated by the Valuation Officer, Meerut to the tune of Rs.2,05,83,500/- pertaining to financial year 2016-17 for assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 7 page 94 in turn has restricted the said valuation from Rs.2,05,83,500/- to Rs.1,30,90,027/- only which leaves the assessee aggrieved. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel representing assessee has raised his twin arguments that the impugned valuation itself is based on CPWD than State’s PWD rates and both the lower authorities have nowhere granted