Sri Bathula Siva Kumar Reddy, Vijayawada v. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

ITA 38/VIZ/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3825314 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AJQPB8118D
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 38/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Sri Bathula Siva Kumar Reddy, Vijayawada
Respondent The ITO, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 20-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 09-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-12-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 22-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM. BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 3 8 /VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 BATHULA SIVA KUMAR REDDY INCOME TAX O FFICER WARD - 2(4) VIJAYAWADA . VS. VIJAYAWADA. PAN : AJQPB8118D APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GVN HARI CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DS SUNDER SINGH DR O R D E R PER SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 63 770/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE BR IEF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WAS MADE AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCED ANY B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED CONSEQUENT TO SURVEY OPERATION. T HE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER HAVE DISCLOSED THEIR INVESTMENT IN COST OF CONSTRUCT ION AS UNDER: S NO. NAM OF THE ASSESSEE AY 2005 - 06 AY 2006 - 07 TOTAL 1 SRI B VENKATESWARA REDDY RS.5 00 000 RS.5 00 000 RS.10 00 000 2 SRI B SIVAKUMAR REDDY RS.2 00 000 RS.4 00 000 RS. 6 00 000 TOTAL INVESTMENT RS.7 00 000 RS.9 00 000 RS.16 00 000 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY SRI B VENKATESWARA REDDY CO - OWNER OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER . THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SRI VENKATESWARA REDDY AS DISCLOSED BY HIM WAS ACCEPTED BUT T HE 2 ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BUILDING WAS REFERRED TO VALUATION CELL U/S 142(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE DVO ACCORDINGLY VALUED THE BUILDING AT RS.27 63 769/ - AFTER ALLOWING REBATE FOR SELF SUPERVISION AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS . THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS WORKED OUT TO BE RS.11 63 769/ - WITH REGARD TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR AN ADDITION IN HIS OWN HANDS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AGA INST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FOUND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT WHATEVER DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS WORKED OUT IT SHOULD HAV E BEEN ALLOCATED BETWEEN BOTH THE CO - OWNERS OF THE BUILDING . S INCE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE THE INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. H E MADE THE ADDITION OF EN TIRE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE L D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER AGREED FOR AN ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO WITH THE SUBMIS SION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON AGREED BASIS THE SAME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT IES . IT IS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE DR THAT WHATEVER CLA IM WAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE SELF SUPERVISION AND RATE DIFFERENCE IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS WORKED OUT AND ADDED IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE ON AGREED BASIS . 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE FIND THAT UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION THE REFORE THE PROPERTY WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO FOR ITS VALUATION AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS WORKED OUT TO BE AT RS.27 63 769/ - . THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 11 63 769/ - . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOK S OF ACCOU NT IN THIS REGARD. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE ORDER SHEET PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE AO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AR THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURT HER INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOCATION OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE FATHER AND THE SON. ONCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS AGREED TO A PARTICULAR ADDITION IN HIS HAND HE IS DEBARRED FROM CHALLENG ING THE SAME BEFORE THE 3 APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE IMPUGNED ISSUES RIGHT PERSPECTI VES AND WE FIND NO ERROR THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE COURT ON 20/01/2011. SD/ - SD/ - (B.R. BASKARAN) (S UNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM DATED: 20 TH JANUARY 2011 *MSB/UDC COPY OF ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI BATHULA SIVA KUMAR REDDY D NO.24 - 1 - 95C PROP: PRAGATHI SUPER MARKET DURGAPURAM VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2( 4 ) VIJAYAWADA. 3. CIT VIJAYAWADA. 4. CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA. 5. DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKH APATNAM.