Commissioner of Income v. Smt. Prem Kumari Murdiya
2005-03-24
DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dated July 23, 2004. 2. In the case of the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer had made additions as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1995-96, on the basis of difference in the cost declared by the assessee and cost determined by DVO on CPWD rates. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that in the facts of the case, the appropriate rate to be taken into consideration would have been PWD rates. Keeping in view the aforesaid, a deduction of 20 per cent. was allowed from the cost of construction estimated by the Department Valuation Officer in order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of cost of construction for the relevant assessment year and sustained the balance of addition on that basis. On further appeal, the Tribunal by order under appeal has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Dinesh Talwar [2004] 265 ITR 344 , the facts of which case were almost similar. 3. We are also of the opinion that what shall be taken to be the cost of construction of a property constructed is essentially a question of fact and not the question of law. Moreover, the matter is squarely governed by the Division Bench decision of this court and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 4. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed, as in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 5. Before parting with the case, we may observe that a strange procedure has been adopted by the Assessing Officer in making a joint assessment order for three assessment years ignoring that each assessment year is a separate unit and its assessment cannot transgress into other assessment. The fact that appeals raising the identical question can be decided by a common order, does not permit the Assessing Officer to pass a common order for number of assessment years. *******