2003 (11) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lained investment in construction of 1st floor of house by invoking the provisions of s. 69B of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case." "That while deleting the above addition, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that the valuation officer is an expert person and the period of construction as reported by him was only adopted for the assessment proceedings by the AO." "That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the above addition without giving any opportunity to the Valuation Officer before departing from his report regarding period of construction." 3. The facts of the issue are that an addition of Rs. 1,11,800 was made as unexplained investment in the construction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tinued upto 30th Sept., 1993. We noted that the assessee has all along been contending that the construction was competed on 30th Sept., 1993. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the assessee that the statement of the assessee was also recorded by the AO on 12th July, 1994 wherein she deposed that the construction was done in 1992 and 1993. The assessee also submitted some vouchers in respect of purchase of material and hiring of building material for the period after 31st March, 1993. The Departmental Valuer visited the premises on 9th Feb., 1994 when the valuation report and other papers were filed. It is submitted before us that the Departmental Valuer was intimated that the construction continued upto 30th Sept.,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, the cost of the construction comes to Rs. 3,16,873 as against Rs. 3,55,636 estimated by the Departmental Valuer for the period upto 30th Sept., 1993. The investment shown by the assessee upto this date is Rs. 3,01,679. There is difference of Rs. 15,194. Thus, the difference remains about 5.03 per cent which is quite nominal between the estimate made by the Departmental Valuer and the actual expenditures incurred by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee had also taken an alternative plea that reference made to the Departmental Valuer by the AO is illegal in view of the apex Court decision ....