COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. S JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.365 and 812/Mds/2002 dated 28.4.2006 for the assessment year 1998-1999.

(2.) 1. The brief facts are that the assessee built a Kalayana Mandapam and during the survey, it was pointed out to the assessee that the amount of Rs.21 lakhs debited for the construction of the plinth area was very low and hence, the assessee agreed for the addition of Rs.5 lakhs towards the cost of construction. On assessment, the Assessing Officer referred the cost of construction to the Departmental Valuation Officer, who arrived at the cost of Rs.36.36 lakhs. Since there was no response from the assessee for the objections being called for with regard to the valuation of the Departmental Valuation Officer, the assessing officer added Rs.10 lakhs to the cost of construction, as against the difference of Rs.10.41 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner found that the plinth area method of estimate is reasonable as the assessee had not produced complete bills and also held that the State PWD rates are more reasonable. The Commissioner also arrived at the difference in the cost of construction as Rs.2.14 lakhs as against Rs.10 lakhs arrived at by the assessing officer. 2.2. Against the order of the Commissioner, both, the assessee and the revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the entire issue in favour of the assessee and also observed that adoption of State PWD rates would be more reasonable while arriving at the cost of construction. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred the above appeals raising the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) IN view of the above, holding that the issues raised in the above questions are purely questions of fact, we find no question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for our consideration. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.