https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245656 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142A was invalid. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69C was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have material to demonstrate understatement of construction costs before referring to the DVO and noted that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to interfere with concluded assessments by involving the valuation cell. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:39:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245656 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 142A was invalid. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69C was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have material to demonstrate understatement of construction costs before referring to the DVO and noted that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to interfere with concluded assessments by involving the valuation cell. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245656