Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred raising the following substantial questions of law: "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul Vs. CIT reported in : 262 ITR 407 even after insertion of Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with retrospective effect from 15.11.72? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in not relying on the Valuation Report in spite of the fact that the Valuation arrived was not challenged by the assessee? C. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not considering the provision of Clause (v) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 132 empowering the authorized officer to make an inventory of stock in the case of person being searched? D. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by ITAT is perverse -
(2.) HAVING heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Tax Appeal and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. It appears that the Assessing Officer had seen the building in question which is known as Panchwati Plaza situated in the city of Ranchi. He was of the opinion that the cost of the building is much higher. Ultimately, search and seizure was carried out at the premises in question on 20th June, 2002 and the appellant arrived at conclusion with the help of the valuer appointed by the department that the value of the building in question is higher than what is shown in the books of account, by Rs. 68,00,000/ -.
(3.) IT further appears that the explanation has been given by the respondent, but, the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the valuation report and has arrived at a conclusion that the valuation of the building in question is shown much lessor i.e. by Rs. 68 lakhs and therefore, the said amount is added in the income of the respondent.;