TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shankar and M.Lava, Advocates JUDGEMENT Per: N Kumar: The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the two Appellate Authorities holding that even if the valuation by DVO is accepted and the difference in the cost of construction is Rs. 41,33,983/-, which has to be set off against the expenditure incurred for the said construction and therefore, there won....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al grounds. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had suppressed the investment in the building construction and went ahead to make addition of Rs. 41,33,983/- being the difference in the cost of construction of the building as determined by the DVO and the cause shown by the assessee in its books. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the owner. In fact, additional investment made therein shall not be considered in the hands of the assessee and therefore, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 6. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law on 07.07.2009:- "1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as deduction under any head of income. That proviso equally applies to Section 69-B and therefore, the finding of the appellate authorities allowing the unexplained expenditure as a deduction is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the proviso to Section 69C has to be confined t....