https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196660 An addition for alleged undisclosed investment in immovable property could not be sustained where it rested only on the DVO's valuation report. The Tribunal held that the comparable instance adopted by the Valuation Officer was not a proper comparable, while a nearer comparable was already available on record. As no independent material showed that the assessee had invested more than the amount recorded in the purchase deed, the condition for invoking section 69B was not met and the reference under section 142A also failed. The valuation report alone was insufficient to support the addition, which was deleted. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196660 An addition for alleged undisclosed investment in immovable property could not be sustained where it rested only on the DVO's valuation report. The Tribunal held that the comparable instance adopted by the Valuation Officer was not a proper comparable, while a nearer comparable was already available on record. As no independent material showed that the assessee had invested more than the amount recorded in the purchase deed, the condition for invoking section 69B was not met and the reference under section 142A also failed. The valuation report alone was insufficient to support the addition, which was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196660