TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the books of account of the assessee have been rejected. The facts in the present case are otherwise. The law as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT (2009 (10) TMI 569 - Supreme Court of India ) covers the matter squarely wherein held that matter could not refer to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of account being rejected.- Decided in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant under Section 145 (3), the order of the Tribunal below sustaining the reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A is contrary to the law laid down in Sargam Cinema v. CIT, 328 ITR 513 (SC) and a Division Bench judgment dated 17.05.2011 of this Hon'ble Court in CIT v. Lucknow Public Educational Society? (b) Whether, in absence of there being any other material for makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 29.11.2010 wherein it has been recorded by the AO that the assessee (appellant) had not kept and maintained the details relating to investment made in the house property and he has failed to justify the investment shown in construction of property. In view of such notings made in the assessment record, the JCIT has submitted that it may be seen that the AO has very categorically recorded the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. Authorized Representative as the assessee did not maintain detailed construction account. He has simply maintained account wherein lump sum advance in construction has been accounted for. A copy of construction account filed by the assessee has been placed on record. It is admitted fact that the assessee did not maintain day-to-day construction expenditure account. In the light of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
