https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211028 A valuation reference under section 142A was invalid where no incriminating material showed understatement of property investment and the books of account were neither rejected nor found unreliable. In those circumstances, the valuation machinery could not be invoked on a mere subjective suspicion or as a roving inquiry. An addition for unexplained investment in land and construction based only on the DVO report was also unsustainable because the revenue had not discharged the primary burden of proving concealment or understatement, and no reliable foundation existed for section 69B. The ratio is that a valuation report alone cannot justify such an addition without prior factual support and defective or rejected books. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211028 A valuation reference under section 142A was invalid where no incriminating material showed understatement of property investment and the books of account were neither rejected nor found unreliable. In those circumstances, the valuation machinery could not be invoked on a mere subjective suspicion or as a roving inquiry. An addition for unexplained investment in land and construction based only on the DVO report was also unsustainable because the revenue had not discharged the primary burden of proving concealment or understatement, and no reliable foundation existed for section 69B. The ratio is that a valuation report alone cannot justify such an addition without prior factual support and defective or rejected books. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211028