https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798350 Addition for unexplained investment in construction cannot rest solely on a Departmental Valuation Officer's estimated cost exceeding the declared cost. A departmental valuation is only an estimate and does not prove actual undisclosed expenditure. Where the effective difference, after personal-supervision allowance, could result from use of higher CPWD rates rather than applicable local PWD rates, and the taxpayer's Haryana PWD-based valuation is not rejected on cogent grounds, independent corroborative evidence is required. In the absence of material proving expenditure beyond the disclosed construction cost, Section 69 addition cannot be sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Sep 2026 08:44:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798350 Addition for unexplained investment in construction cannot rest solely on a Departmental Valuation Officer's estimated cost exceeding the declared cost. A departmental valuation is only an estimate and does not prove actual undisclosed expenditure. Where the effective difference, after personal-supervision allowance, could result from use of higher CPWD rates rather than applicable local PWD rates, and the taxpayer's Haryana PWD-based valuation is not rejected on cogent grounds, independent corroborative evidence is required. In the absence of material proving expenditure beyond the disclosed construction cost, Section 69 addition cannot be sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798350