9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of construction of the building came to ₹ 29,42,304. This figure was disputed by the respondents. The issue was referred to the Departmental Valuer. According to this valuer, the estimated cost of the land and building should have been ₹ 37,92,200. On this basis, a difference of ₹ 8,49,896 was sought to be added in the account of the assessee as unexplained investment. The ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een proposed by the CIT. In addition to this, grievance is also made of the fact that the CIT made an observation that there should be an addition to the extent of ₹ 1,12,747, i.e., the amount which would have been paid to the architect or the person who had prepared the plans. Relief is being sought on another ground also. It is urged that if all these facts and figures are taken into consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared, has been rightly taken into consideration and no variation should be made in this regard. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the view expressed earlier by the Tribunal that if the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer is less than 10 per cent, then this difference is liable to be ignored, has some mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
