Taxc/54/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Bhilai Builders Pvt. Lts

•,y^^-^.^- 's HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, CJ.HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. TaxCaseNo. 54 of 2011 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel forthe Appellant. JUDGEMENT(23rd0ctober,2013) 1. This is a tax appeal by the Income Tax Department (the Department)against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench,Bilaspur, (the Tribunal) dated 14.07.2010 in respect of the assessmentyear (the AY) 2006-07 of M/s. Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee). THE FACTS 2. A survey was conducted in the business premises of the Assessee on13.10.2005 and thereafter, a reference was made on 30.06.2006 to theDepartment Valuation Officer (the DVO) for estimating the cost of theconstruction. 3. The Assessee filed its return for the relevant AY on 30.11.2006showing its net income to be ? 8,39,830/-. Subsequently, the AssessingOfficer (the AO) issued a notice under section 142(2)afthe Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act) on 22.03.2007 forthe purpose ofthe assessment. 4. During pendency ofthe assessment proceedings, the valuation reportwas also submitted on 31.10.2007 showing the cost of construction tobe under estimated. 5. The AO by his order dated 31.12.2008,accepted the report of theDVO and added total sum of? 25,58,015/-.K @ .'.•^-^.N '::il^B^'<i:Y""a11'•^y §"'^.^^^^ / Subbu/Amit 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). It was allowedon 19.06.2009. The CIT-A upheld the reference to the DVO, howeverdeleted the addition. 7. Against the aforesaid order, the Department filed an appeal beforethe Tribunal. It was dismissed by the Tribunal on 14.07.2010. Hence,the present appeal by the Department. THE DECISION 8.We have heard counsel for the Department. 9. The CIT-A has deleted the addition relying upon the PWD schedulerather than the CPWD schedule mentioned by the DVO. This finding hasbeen upheld by the Tribunal. This is a finding offact. 10.There is neither any illegality in the same nor any substantialquestion of law arises in the appeal.The tax case has no merit. It isdismissed. Sd/-Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge Sd/- Chief Justice