MOHAMADRAFIQ ALLABKSHA BAGWAN,,ICHALKARANJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order 1. of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 11, Pune dt.28.06.2016 for the assessment year 1999-2000.

2.1 Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of

vegetables and fruits and also deriving income by letting his Tempo

Trax. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 1999-2000 on

12.07.1999 declaring total income of Rs.62,270/-. Thereafter, the

case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act

dt.28.03.2006 which was served on assessee on 31.03.2006. In

response to the notice, assessee filed his return of income on

05.05.2006 declaring total income of Rs.62,270/-, being the same

income declared in the original return. Thereafter, assessment was

framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.19.12.2006 and

the total income was determined at Rs.5,89,270/-. Thereafter, order

was passed u/s 154 of the Act by AO on 19.06.2017 and the revised

total income was determined at Rs.3,74,270/-. Aggrieved by the order

of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.28.06.2016 dismissed the appeal of

assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in

appeal before us.

argumentative in nature and not in consonance with Rule 8 of the

Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

in the past at the request of the assessee. On the date of hearing none

appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application

was filed though the notice of hearing has been served on the

assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts, we proceed to dispose of the

appeal ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of material available on

record and after hearing the Ld.D.R.

raised various grounds but he is challenging the order passed u/s 154

of the Act. He submitted that originally AO made addition of

Rs.5,12,600/- on account of unexplained investment in the

construction of house. The assessee had submitted that the house

was constructed in two years and therefore the addition be spread

over two years. The AO referred the matter to the DVO and based on

his report reduced the addition to Rs.2,97,000/-. He therefore

submitted that the order passed u/s 154 of the Act is to the benefit of

assessee. He thus supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

AO in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act has noted that while

finalizing the assessment, addition of Rs.5,12,600/- was made on

account of undisclosed investment in construction of residential

property at plot No.684/B-1, Sangli Road, Itchalkarnaji and it was

made on the basis of valuation of property made by the Department

Valuer being the difference between the value shown by the assessee

in the books and the value determined by the DVO. Thereafter,

assessee vide letter dt.06.01.2007 submitted that the investment in

construction of the property was in two years F.Y. 1998-99 i.e., A.Y.

1999-2000 and 2000-01 and in A.Y. 1998-99 relevant to A.Y. 1999-

2000, construction was at preliminary stage and major portion of the

investment is for the construction of house and was made in A.Y.

2000-01 and he accordingly declared Rs.4,36,000/- in the return of

income for A.Y. 2000-01, which was filed in response to notice u/s

153A of the Act. AO noted that in view of the submissions of the

assessee, the DVO was requested to bifurcate the total investment as

determined by him assessment year-wise. The DVO thereafter has

given the year-wise bifurcation as under :

1) Valuation before 31.03.1999 - Rs.5,03,000/-.

2) Valuation after 01.04.1999 - Rs.2,15,600/-.

After considering the bifurcation as given by the DVO, the difference

in the value shown by the assessee in the books and the value

determined by the DVO has worked at Rs.2,97,000/- (Rs.5,03,000/- -

- Rs.2,06,000/-) which was considered as undisclosed income for

A.Y. 1999-2000. He accordingly revised the total income. We find

that against the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as

under :

“5. The brief facts of the case are that as per the report of the DVO the AO made an addition of Rs.5,12,600/ in asst year 1999-2000 on account of unexplained investment in the construction of a house. The appellant on the other hand disclosed an amount of Rs.4,36,000/- on this account in asst year 2000-01. The appellant requested the AO that the house was constructed in two years and therefore the addition should be spread over two asst years. The AO again referred the matter to the DVO and as per his report, reduced the addition in asst. year 1999-2000 to Rs.2,97,000/-. Thus in a way the order passed u/s 154 is to the benefit of the appellant. 6. Still the appellant is aggrieved and has argued that the DVO's report should not be relied upon. The appellant's contention is that he himself had disclosed an amount of Rs.4,36,000/- in asst 2000-01 on the basis of a govt. approved valuer. Accordingly the appellant claims that the addition made by the AO on the basis of the DVO’s report is not correct in law.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before

us.

that the issue raised by the assessee being contentious, reliance on

the DVO Report is not a mistake apparent on record which could be

rectified u/s 154 of the Act. He has further noted that in a way the

order passed by AO u/s 154 of the Act is to the benefit of assessee.

Before us, no material has been placed by the assessee to establish

any fallacy in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). We therefore dismiss the

grounds of the assessee.

Order pronounced on 27th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 27th February, 2018. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// // True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.