Assessment validity and unexplained investment principles: inoperative procedure cannot annul assessment, and explained construction cost defeats addition.

Section 144B of the Income-tax Act could not be applied to an assessment for assessment year 1973-74 because the provision came into force only from 1 April 1976, so non-compliance with it could not invalidate the assessment. On the merits, an addition for unexplained investment in house construction was unsustainable where the valuation material, balance-sheet figures, approved valuer's report, witness statements, and an independent statutory assessment collectively supported the assessee's explanation of cost, timing, and sources of funds. The construction having continued until June 1973, the expenditure was attributable to the relevant years and the addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the assessment for assessment year 1973-74 and whether the assessment could be annulled for non-compliance; (ii) Whether the addition for unexplained investment in the construction of the house property was sustainable on the evidence regarding cost of construction, period of completion, and source of funds.

Issue (i): Whether section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the assessment for assessment year 1973-74 and whether the assessment could be annulled for non-compliance.

Analysis: The provision came into force from 1 April 1976, while the assessment year involved was 1973-74. On that footing, the provision had no application to the assessment. A mere alleged procedural defect under that provision could not justify annulment of the assessment.

Conclusion: The provision was inapplicable to the assessment year and the annulment was unsustainable, in favour of Revenue on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for unexplained investment in the construction of the house property was sustainable on the evidence regarding cost of construction, period of completion, and source of funds.

Analysis: The record contained multiple valuation materials, the assessee's balance-sheet figures, the approved valuer's report, statements of the builder and workers, and an independent assessment under the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Act, 1964. The evidence supported the view that the cost of construction was reasonable as shown by the assessee and that the investment stood explained. The construction was also found to have continued up to June 1973, so the expenditure spread across the relevant years could be taken into account.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment was not justified and was rightly deleted, in favour of the assessee on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not be annulled for want of compliance with section 144B, and the addition for unexplained investment was deleted on merits, leaving the departmental challenge without success.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural provision that is not yet in force for the relevant assessment year cannot be invoked to annul the assessment, and an addition for unexplained investment must fail where the evidence satisfactorily explains the cost, timing, and sources of the investment.

---