https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=56704 Unexplained investment u/s. 69 - DDIT (Inv.) could not have referred the question of cost of construction/valuation of the assessee’s building to the Valuation Officer in the year 2014 ; and thereafter, since the DVO did not present the valuation report after AO has referred the valuation vide letter dated 22.01.2016 as well as the Ld. CIT(A) within six months from the end of the month of the reference, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that DVO was bound by law [sec. 142A(6)] to have submitted the valuation report within the statutory time limit, which view we endorse.- AT en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:59:53 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:59:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=56704 Unexplained investment u/s. 69 - DDIT (Inv.) could not have referred the question of cost of construction/valuation of the assessee’s building to the Valuation Officer in the year 2014 ; and thereafter, since the DVO did not present the valuation report after AO has referred the valuation vide letter dated 22.01.2016 as well as the Ld. CIT(A) within six months from the end of the month of the reference, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that DVO was bound by law [sec. 142A(6)] to have submitted the valuation report within the statutory time limit, which view we endorse.- AT Highlights Income Tax Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:59:53 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=56704