https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10506 The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. It ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to refer the cost of construction to the Valuation Officer, and any additions made in such reference were set aside. The addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act was deemed untenable and deleted. The Court clarified the retrospective effect of section 142A, stating that the Assessing Officer cannot assume powers without providing the assessee an opportunity. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10506 The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. It ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to refer the cost of construction to the Valuation Officer, and any additions made in such reference were set aside. The addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act was deemed untenable and deleted. The Court clarified the retrospective effect of section 142A, stating that the Assessing Officer cannot assume powers without providing the assessee an opportunity. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10506