9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial year 1976-77 to 1979-80. The total investment shown by the assessee in the construction of the house property for the four years was Rs. 89,000. The assessee filed a report of the approved valuer in support of her valuation. The ITO held that the cost of construction shown was on the lower side. He estimated the cost of construction in the four years at Rs. 2,07,850. However, after s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered valuer he sustained in addition of Rs. 1,083 which is the difference between the valuation made by the registered valuer and the amount shown by the assessee. Against the said order the Revenue has preferred these appeals. 3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the estimate made by the ITO was perfectly justified as that estimate derives support from the valuation rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions. The estimate made by the ITO is, of course, not supported by any evidence. There is no proper basis for the estimate made and so the value determined by the ITO cannot be accepted. There is no reference to any Departmental Valuation report in the assessment order made by the ITO. Hence the report of the valuation officer which the learned Departmental Representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition in each year would come to about Rs. 8,000 which should be added towards the cost of construction as unexplained investment. Thus, we direct the ITO to add Rs. 8,000 in each of these four years as unexplained investment in the construction of the building. Thus, we modify the order of the AAC and restore an addition of Rs. 8,000 in each of the four years as unexplained investment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
