Itta/2/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M. Laxmana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.A. No. 2 of 2002 O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This Appeal arising out of the order dated04.07.2000 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inI.T.A.No. 13/Hyd/2000 is at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions of law for the assessment year1996-97 are raised for opinion of this Court. i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the unexplainedinvestment is only Rs.3.50 lakhs in the absence of anyreliable and cogent evidence placed by the assessee? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal is correct in not adverting to the assessee’ssworn statement, the order of the Assessing Officer and theorder of the first appellate authority [CIT(Appeals)]? The issue in controversy is with respect to addition ofRs.7,23,465/- as undisclosed income from other sources. The amount has been arrived at as difference of amountas shown by the assessee with respect to the cost ofconstruction of the house and the valuation made at theinstance of the assessing officer by the valuation officer. As against this addition, the assessee raised objections tothe valuation report submitted by the SuperintendingEngineer through Chartered Engineer. The AssessingOfficer in his assessment order merely stated thatobjections raised by the assessee were forwarded to the Superintendent Engineer – Valuation Officer, who hadstated that the valuation report “is in order and may beadopted without any change”. The assessment order, inother words, had not dealt with the objections raised bythe assessee with respect to the valuation. The firstappellate authority also did not deal with this aspect anddid not consider the objections raised by the assessee. On appeal, the Income-tax Tribunal, in its order, recordedas under: “We heard both sides in detail, and discussed the matter in theCourt. We find much force in the argument of the learnedcounsel for the assessee that a series of technical objectionsraised by the assessee’s Chartered Engineer have not beenproperly dealt with either by the Valuation Officer or by the lowerauthorities of the Department. Therefore, we find that theassessee is entitled to reasonable relief in this amount ofRs.7,23,465/- added by the assessing officer on account ofdifferential cost of construction, in respect of the ground floor ofthe building. Considering all the aspects of the case, we setaside the orders of the lower authorities and direct theassessing officer to limit the difference in cost of construction toRs.3.50 lakhs and treat only that amount as the unexplainedinvestment of the assessee in the construction. In thecircumstances, the cost of construction of ground floor shouldbe taken as Rs.10,16,591/-. The assessee, therefore, gets arelief of Rs.3,73,465/-.” The order of the Tribunal is on appreciation of the factsand material placed before them. The conclusions arrivedat by the Tribunal are based on pure questions of fact. There is no question raised before us against thesequestions of fact and no contra material as such has beenplaced before us to arrive at a conclusion that the findingsrecorded by the Tribunal are unsustainable or perverse. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reasonto interfere with the orders of the Tribunal and in thecircumstances, we decline to answer the questions of lawas they are pure questions of fact. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Appeal,Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall standdisposed of as infructuous. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 11.02.2014 bcj ______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J