COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. D. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T.A. No. 552/Mds/2004, dated December 16, 2005, for the assessment year 1999 -2000.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the assessee constructed a kalyana mandapam. On scrutiny of assessment, the Assessing Officer referred the cost of construction to the Valuation Officer, who arrived at the cost of Rs. 52,93,400. On completion of assessment, the Assessing Officer, after allowing 15 per cent, rebate towards self supervision held that the assessee had admitted sources and accordingly, added a sum of Rs. 20,00,390. Aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), who after holding that the Assessing Officer had no powers to refer the cost of construction to the Valuation Officer, reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer from Rs. 20,00,390 to Rs. 3,51,000 and partly allowed the appeal. Exasperated by the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by impugned order dated December 16, 2005, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to carry out the exercise of comparing the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer with that of the registered valuer with a further direction to apply the State PWD rates instead of applying the Central PWD rates to arrive at the actual cost of construction.

(3.) EVEN at the outset we may say that the issues raised in this appeal with regard to the determination of cost of construction on the basis of the reports of the registered valuer and the Departmental Valuation Officer and with regard to the application of the State PWD rates or the Central PWD rates to arrive at the actual cost of construction are purely questions of fact.