Itc/6/2003 Of Shri Jallipalli Subrahmanyam v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.C.No.6 of 2003 ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is a Contractor and is an assessee under theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). For the assessment year1990-91, he has shown the cost of construction of a building atRs.4,52,000/-. The Assessing Officer doubted the correctness of thatfigure. To buttress his contention, the petitioner filed a report of aRegistered Valuer, which has disclosed the figure of Rs.4,25,000/-. Onhis part, the Assessing Officer got the structure valued through aDepartmental Valuation Officer, according to whom, it was Rs.9,63,300/- . The Assessing Officer ultimately took the cost at Rs.7,69,717/- andlevied the tax accordingly. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, theCommissioner (Appeals) took the figure as Rs.6,53,000/-. Not satisfiedwith that, the petitioner filed I.T.A.No.745 of 1994 before the HyderabadBench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal wasdismissed, on 22.08.1997. Feeling aggrieved by the outcome of theappeal, the petitioner filed R.A.No.31/VZG/97, with a prayer to refer thequestions framed by him to this Court for answer. Accordingly, theTribunal passed an order, dated 14.02.2002, refusing to refer thequestions. Hence, this I.T.C., under Section 256(2) of the Act. Heard Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The gist of the questions framed by the petitioner is that whenthere is lack of agreement between the authorities under the Act beingDepartmental Valuer, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals), it cannot be said that the assessment was done inaccordance with law. We find it difficult to accept such a broadproposition. It is only on the possibility of existence of difference ofopinion not only on facts and figures, but as to the understanding of therelevant provisions of law that hierarchy of remedy is provided. Thepetitioner is not able to point out any question of law. At any rate, thevaluation of the property is a pure question of fact. We, therefore, reject the I.T.C. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this I.T.C. shall also standdisposed of. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. _____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. Date:26.08.2014 GJ