Ita/92/2015 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Faridabad v. Avtar Kukreja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITAQ?2015 (O&M)Date of decision:21.05.2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..Appellant Versus. Avtar Kukreja ...RespondentITAO42015 (O&M) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..Appellant Versus. Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent CORAMHONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALI Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. ee S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (QRAL) These appeals are against the common order of the Tribunal dated30.11.2010 allowing substantially the respondent’s appeal against the orderof the CIT (Appeals) confirming the additions made by the AssessingOfficer. 2 |Both the appeals pertain to the assessment years 2004-2005 and2006-2007 respectively. A search was carried out under Section 132 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had the properties valued bythe Departmental Valuation Officer (in short DVO). The Tribunal upheld thematter having been referred to the DVO. However, on merits, the Tribunal has set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer. | 3 |No question of law arises in the matter. The matter involved an valuation of the plot by the assessee and DVO came to41,18,887/-. TheTribunal noted that no comparable sale instance had been given and thatthere was no incriminating material which could justify the addition made.The Assessing Officer had added an amount of only=46,916/-. The:Tribunal rightly deleted the addition. | 4AWith respect to the second property, the Tribunal noted that theStamp duty had been paid on the current circle rate. The Tribunal rightlyobserved that the DVO had valued the property on 18.11.2008 ignoring thevital fact that the property was acquired in the year 2003 and registered on03.03.2004 with the constructed house thereon. There was no evidence tosupport the addition. The same was, therefore, rightly set aside.| 5 _With respect to the third property, the cost of construction wasassessed at=5,/6,926/- against the respondent’s claim that the cost of|construction was43,00,000/-. The Tribunal found merit in the argumentthat the PWD rates should have been adopted instead of the CPWD rates andthat no rebate had been given for self-supervision. The Tribunal adopted arebate of 15% on account of difference between the CPWD rates and the'PWD rates and 5% on account of self-supervision. The Tribunal, therefore,after balancing the factors reduced the addition toL1,61,542/-. There is no|watrant for interfering with the discretion. © 6_The last property was valued at|=48,600,000/- by capitalizing therent. However, the rent was taken as prevalent in the year 2007-2008. It wasnoted that by then the locality had become more prominent and had startedfetching commercial value. The rent was fixed in respect of a lease granted in favour of a Multi National Company (MNC). The Tribunal rightly noted respect to the relevant assessment year, namely, 2003-2004. At that time, therent was about 1/10[th]of the rent in the year 2007-2008. The addition was,therefore, rightly deleted. J |As regards the next property, the issue was similar. The rent wascapitalized on an erroneous basis. &The above findings are in any event purely questions of fact. No question of law arises. | 9The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. — 21.05.2015Amodh (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) |JUDGE