RAGHUVENDRA SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee under s. 260A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dt. 31st March, 2010, Annex. A3, passed by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No. 30/Asr/2010, for the asst. yr. 2007 -08. It was admitted on 28th Aug., 2012 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee submitted that since the books of account were never rejected and there was no specific order passed by the AO rejecting the books of account, therefore, no reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and as a consequence thereof, no addition could be made on account of construction of the hospital. Reliance was placed upon judgments in Sargam Cinema vs. CIT : (2011) 241 CTR (SC) 179 : (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC), CIT vs. Chohan Resorts, (2012) 253 CTR (P & H) 106 :, (2012) 76 DTR (P & H) 163 and Nirpal Singh vs. CIT, I.T. Appeal No. 522 of 2009, decided on 16th Sept., 2013 [reported at, (2013) 96 DTR (P & H) 385 - -Ed.]. It was submitted by the counsel that though this point was never raised before the Tribunal but this being a pure question of law, in view of sub -ss. (6) and (7) of s. 260A of the Act, this Court could permit the appellant to raise such a plea. Support was drawn from judgment of the Karnataka High Court in I.T. Appeal No. 313 of 2002, CIT & Anr. vs. Distillers Co. Ltd., decided on 4th Dec., 2003 and judgment of Calcutta High Court in C.C.A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT : (2005) 193 CTR (Cal) 74 : (2004) 270 ITR 248 (Cat). Lastly, it was submitted that since there was less than 15 per cent variance in the report of the DVO and the cost of construction as shown in the books of account after including sum of Rs. 22 lacs which was surrendered at the time of search and seizure, which was within the permissible limit and thus, no addition was called for.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal.