KRISHAN KUMAR JHAMB Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned. 2008 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench -1, Delhi proposing following substantial questions of law : "(a) Whether the Revenue has erred in law in relying upon a valuation report based on CPWD rates for calculating the cost of construction of property located in the State of Haryana ? (b) Whether on account of non -finalization of HPWD rates the CPWD rates would be deemed to be applicable ? (c) Whether the Revenue authorities have erred in law by wrongly treating advances as cash credits by applying s. 68 of the IT Act ? (d) Whether the Revenue can be permitted to make double addition of the same item (advances in the present case) in the assessable income of the assessee ? (e) Whether the contradictory findings of the Revenue authorities can be applied to the prejudice of the appellant ? (f) Whether the Revenue authorities have wrongly interpreted and applied the Civil Court judgment ? (g) Whether the onus to disclose the source of income of the source has to be discharged by the assessee ? (h) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) be adopted and ignore the valuation report of the approved valuer filed by the appellant which report was, in fact considered by the AO and adopted after making some additions, in view of the judgment in Bholanath Majumdar vs. ITO & Ors. (1997) 137 CTR (Gau) 198 : (1996) 221 ITR 608 (Gau) and other similar judgments ? (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO was correct in law in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer in the absence of any adverse material on record even when the valuation report was filed by the assessee/appellant and adopted ? (j) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in facts and in law -

(2.) DURING the assessment for the asst. yr. 1991 -92, the AO did not accept the valuation of property and genuineness of the cash credits. On appeal, the CIT(A) remanded the matter for fresh assessment in the light of report of the DVO. The AO made assessment accordingly. Difference between the value of the property declared by the assessee and the value of the property determined by the DVO was added back. Apart from this, the cash credits were treated to be the income from other sources. On appeal, part of addition was deleted to the extent explanation of assessee was found to be acceptable.

(3.) THE Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the appellate authority.