Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2009 2009 SLD 2009 (2009) 308 ITR 71
Patna High Court
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS. 46 and 51 OF 2002, OCTOBER 22, 2008
CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD AND SUBASH CHANDRA, JHA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2009] 308 ITR 71 (PATNA) HIGH COURT OF PATNA Bimla Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD AND SUBASH CHANDRA JHA JJ. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS. 46 and 51 OF 2002 OCTOBER 22, 2008 Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained Investments Where difference between cost of construction shown by assessee and that estimated by valuer was less than 15 per cent and further construction of house was spread over period of 7 years, difference was so meagre that one could assume it to be bona fide difference, fit to be ignored [In favour of assessee] Bimla Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 /222 CTR (Pat.) 404 During search it was found that the assessee had made huge investments in house property. According to the assessee they had invested a sum of Rs. 11,15,000 in construction of the house but according to the report of the valuer, cost of construction was Rs. 12,99,700. Held that in valuation of the house property bona fide difference is bound to occur. In the absence of any statutory provision, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the percentage of difference which can be ignored. The difference between the assessee and the valuer was less than 15 per cent. Not only this, the construction of the house was spread over a period of 7 years. In the facts of the present case the difference between the plea of the assessee on the issue on investment on house property and valuer's report was so meagre that one could assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. Ajay Kumar Rastogi and Shilendra Kumar for the Appellant. Rishi Raj Sinha and Ms. Archana Shahi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Both the appeals arise out of an identical order dated August 21, 2000, passed by the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Tribunal in I.T.A. (ss)47/Pat/1997 and I.T.A. (ss)49/Pat/1997 and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common . 2. Search and seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act was conducted on August 31, 1996 in the residential premises of Bimla Singh, appellant in M. A. No. 46 of 2002 and the late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh. On his death, M. A. No. 51 of 2002 is being pursued by his son…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492