TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the profit of the assessee should be estimated at 8 per cent. of the cost of construction in respect of the Land Mark Apartments instead of the actual difference of Rs. 20,52,265 arrived at from the declaration made by the assessee towards the cost of construction at Rs. 50,11,275 and that fixed by the Valuation Officer at Rs.70,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....540 which was also confirmed by a valuation report. However, what had been disclosed by the assessee was Rs. 50,11,275 as the expenditure on construction and that there was a difference of Rs.20,52,265. The said difference was treated as unexplained investment of the assessee and was added back under section 69 of the Act under an assessment order datedMarch 27, 1996. 3. The assessee being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction estimated by the Valuation Officer and accordingly the Assessing Officer was directed to estimate the profit from the construction activity and subject it to tax and accordingly partly allowed the said appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it would be of relevance to mention that the Revenue also filed an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction activity. He submits that in the absence of any reference to the material on record, the said authorities could not have arrived at such conclusion. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that despite the material on record and on consideration of the same, the authorities below had come to a conclusion that 8 per cent. of the cost of construction ought to be taken as....