Unexplained investment in property cannot rest on valuation report alone without independent evidence rebutting declared consideration.

An addition for unexplained investment in immovable property cannot be sustained merely on a Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate where the assessee supports the declared purchase price with stamp duty valuation and comparable instances from the same or nearby locality. In the absence of independent cogent material showing payment over and above the stated consideration, the valuation report alone is insufficient to justify an addition under section 69B. On these facts, the assessee's declared consideration was accepted and the addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether addition towards unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property could be sustained merely on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer's report when the assessee relied upon the agreed purchase price, stamp duty valuation and comparable instances.

Analysis: The purchase price was substantially supported by the stamp duty valuation and the assessee produced comparable cases from the same society or nearby area. The Court found that the Assessing Officer brought no independent material apart from the valuation report to show that the assessee had paid more than the stated consideration. In the absence of cogent evidence, the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate could not by itself justify an addition under section 69B.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a valuation report without independent cogent evidence rebutting the assessee's declared consideration.

---