2020 (11) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y illegal and un-called for in law as well as on merits. 1.1 That in the absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search, the issue of investment in building is beyond the jurisdiction of Asstt. U/s. 153 A and consequently the reference to valuation cell is also un-called for. 1.2 That without prejudice, the valuation made by the DVO at Rs. 37,50,585/- against declared in books at Rs. 34,43,318/- thereby in excess by Rs. 3,07,267/- is absolutely unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 1.3 That the Ld. AO again erred in law as well as on merits in making addition of Rs. 3,07,267/- U/s. 69 B for alleged un - explained expenditure in renovation and repair of building out of total difference of Rs. 17,46,560/- for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Accordingly, the AO after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee, added the difference of amounts mentioned in col. 4 above in respective assessment years. The addition made for A.Y. 2009-10 is at Rs. 3,07,267/-. 6. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. While holding so, the ld. CIT (A) observed as under: "5.3 The appellant has further taken the plea that the difference in valuation is very small and even section 55A(b) allows reference to DVO only i f in the opinion of AO difference is more than 15%. He contended that the difference here is only 7.5% and should be ignored. It is observed that section 55A(b) gives another parameter of absolute difference of Rs. 25,000,/- also. In the present facts of the case....