Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Trilok Chand Karta on 16 May, 2003

JUDGMENT

N.K. Sud, J.

1. This is a Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), against order dated May 23, 2002, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short “the Tribunal”). The order of the Tribunal relates to four assessment years, viz., 1988-89 to 1991-92, involving a common question about the investment in the construction of a commercial complex in the four years. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90 only. It is not clear as to whether the said order qua the other three assessment years has been challenged or not.

2. The assessee had constructed a commercial complex during the relevant four years and had shown an investment of Rs. 6,42,929. During the course of proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (for short “the DVO”), for estimating the cost of construction of the said building. The District Valuation Officer submitted his report estimating the cost of construction at Rs. 12,67,403 and bifurcated the investment yearwise in the relevant four years. The Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and asked him to explain the difference in investment as under :

Cost of construction

Difference

Assessment year

As per DVO

As per assessee

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

1988-89

4,47,038

2,26,746

2,20,292

1989-90

4,54,096

2,30,300

2,23,796

1990-91

1,80,371

91,532

88,839

1991-92

1,85,898

94,280

91,619

3. The assessee, on the other hand, filed a copy of a registered valuer’s report It was pointed out that previously there was an old building on the site which was demolished and old bricks and mortar, etc., retrieved therefrom were used for the construction of the new building. It was further pointed out that two walls of the old building had also been retained. Further copies of bills and vouchers qua the expenses were also produced. The Assessing Officer, after considering the assessee’s explanation, estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 9,60,029 and accordingly treated the difference of Rs. 3,07,374 as unexplained investment and made proportionate additions in the four assessment years as under :

                        Assessment year          Rs.
                           1988-89      1,24,240
                           1989-90      1,15,520
                           1990-91        39,986
                           1991-92        37,354

 

4. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the additions by holding that in view of the evidence led by the assessee and explanation furnished by him, the District Valuation Officer’s report could not be relied upon. It was also observed that the approved valuer’s report had been wrongly rejected summarily. The Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which have been dismissed by the impugned order. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, observed that the Assessing Officer had duly verified the assessee’s contention that there were two old external walls on the east and south sides up to the first floor which had been retained from the old structure and that the material relating to the old building had also been used in the new construction. Thus, even after accepting all the comments of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had given no basis for estimating the cost of construction at Rs. 9,60,029. The Tribunal in these circumstances preferred the report of the registered valuer, which supported the cost of construction as declared by the assessee.

5. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have perused the order of the Tribunal and are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has appraised the evidence on record and has given reasons for rejecting the estimate of the cost of construction made by the Assessing Officer and for accepting the report of the registered valuer. It is apparent that even the Assessing Officer has not accepted the estimate of the District Valuation Officer. The findings of the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and suffer from no legal or factual infirmity. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.