IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-92-2015 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.05.2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent ITA-94-2015 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Avtar Kukreja ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for appellant. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) These appeals are against common order of Tribunal dated 30.11.2010 allowing substantially respondent s appeal against order of CIT (Appeals) confirming additions made by Assessing Officer. 2. Both appeals pertain to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 respectively. search was carried out under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing Officer had properties valued by Departmental Valuation Officer (in short DVO). Tribunal upheld matter having been referred to DVO. However, on merits, Tribunal has set aside additions made by Assessing Officer. 3. No question of law arises in matter. matter involved appreciation of facts alone. In respect of first property, difference in 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 10:18:15 ::: ITA-92-2015 (O&M) ITA-94-2015 (O&M) valuation of plot by assessee and DVO came to ` 1,18,887/-. Tribunal noted that no comparable sale instance had been given and that there was no incriminating material which could justify addition made. Assessing Officer had added amount of only ` 46,916/-. Tribunal rightly deleted addition. 4. With respect to second property, Tribunal noted that stamp duty had been paid on current circle rate. Tribunal rightly observed that DVO had valued property on 18.11.2008 ignoring vital fact that property was acquired in year 2003 and registered on 03.03.2004 with constructed house thereon. There was no evidence to support addition. same was, therefore, rightly set aside. 5. With respect to third property, cost of construction was assessed at ` 5,76,926/- against respondent s claim that cost of construction was ` 3,00,000/-. Tribunal found merit in argument that PWD rates should have been adopted instead of CPWD rates and that no rebate had been given for self-supervision. Tribunal adopted rebate of 15% on account of difference between CPWD rates and PWD rates and 5% on account of self-supervision. Tribunal, therefore, after balancing factors reduced addition to ` 1,61,542/-. There is no warrant for interfering with discretion. 6. last property was valued at ` 48,60,000/- by capitalizing rent. However, rent was taken as prevalent in year 2007-2008. It was noted that by then locality had become more prominent and had started fetching commercial value. rent was fixed in respect of lease granted in favour of Multi National Company (MNC). Tribunal rightly noted that estimated cost of acquisition ought to have been considered with 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 10:18:15 ::: ITA-92-2015 (O&M) ITA-94-2015 (O&M) respect to relevant assessment year, namely, 2003-2004. At that time, rent was about 1/10th of rent in year 2007-2008. addition was, therefore, rightly deleted. 7. As regards next property, issue was similar. rent was capitalized on erroneous basis. 8. above findings are in any event purely questions of fact. No question of law arises. 9. appeals are, therefore, dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 21.05.2015 Amodh 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 10:18:15 ::: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Avtar Kukreja