TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 926 of 2006: Whether on facts the Tribunal is right in interpreting Section 69C and cognate provisions for upholding the addition of Rs. 8,49,695/- towards cost of construction on the basis of report of the Departmental Valuation Officer?" In Tax Appeal No. 927 of 2006: Whether on facts the Tribunal is right in interpreting Section 69C and cognate provisions for upholding the addition of Rs. 2,28,677/- towards cost of construction on the basis of report of the Departmental Valuation Officer?" 2. The question of law raised in these appeals, had come up for consideration before this Court in Tax Appeal Nos. 1151 to 1153 of 2005. This Court, while deciding the said identical case b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inating evidence which was found during the course of search. Although the Revenue Department had found the existence of a building but there was no evidence that the assessee had in fact incurred expenditure on construction of the said property over and above the amount already declared in the books of accounts. This is not an assessment which was made in the ordinary course of proceedings but admittedly a search under Section 132 was carried therefore it is expected that the addition consequent thereupon should be corroborated with evidence detected at the time of search. As far as the books of accounts of the assessee and the recording of the investment in the construction of the house were concerned, the AO had not found any discrepancy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Sargam Cinema v. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC). This Court in the case of Goodluck Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, reported in 359 ITR 306, in the context of this issue referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra) had observed as under: "12. The facts of the present case may be examined in the light of the statutory scheme discussed hereinabove as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema (supra). In this regard, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer has categorically recorded a finding to the effect that the accounts are duly audite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the books of account nor has he rejected the same. Except for the difference in the estimated cost determined by the Valuation Officer and the actual cost as shown by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in the construction of the building in question and that the books of account do not reflect the correct cost of construction. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra), unless the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer. The referenc....