Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2007, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'H': New Delhi) in Income Tax Appeal No. 4081/Del./2006 (Assessment Year: 2002-2003).
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on record.
3. The appeal was admitted on following questions of law:
1. Whether assessee (present appellant) was under mandatory obligation to get valuation report from a technically qualified person in support of the value of constructions shown by her in her books of account.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the valuation done by the revenue without rejecting the books of account submitted by the Assessee.
4. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/assessee (status individual) submitted her return of income for the assessment year 2002-2003 on 31.10.2002 to the Income Tax Officer, Almora, declaring therein total income as Rs. 2,68,760/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the case was selected for scrutiny, after receiving the approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani, and thereafter a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.12.2002 to the Assessee. The assessee's main source of income is her medical profession by running a nursing home. Professional activities were being carried in a newly constructed building in Ranikhet. The assessee has shown investment in the building at Rs. 26.99 lakh. The Assessing Officer (herein after referred as A.O.) found that the claim of investment is not supported with sufficient proof. The value of the building was then got assessed by the Income Tax Department through departmental Valuation Officer on 24.01.2005, on reference made under Section 142(A) of the Act. As per the valuation report, estimated investment in the construction of building was Rs. 46,57,430/-. As such, difference between value shown by the assessee and by the Valuation Officer came out to be more than Rs. 19 lakh. The objections filed by the assessee against the valuation report were considered by the Assessing Officer, who added Rs. 19,57,092/- to the income of the assessee treating said amount as additional investment made in the construction of the building from undisclosed source under Section 69 of the Act, as such, the total income was assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 23,25,850/-. Against said assessment order dated 22.03.2005, the assessee preferred appeal No. 32/ALM/2005-06 before Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal II), Dehradun, who after hearing the parties, vide his order dated 14.09.2006, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter assessee went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who passed the impugned order, challenged in this appeal. In the impugned order, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appeal was partly allowed and as to investment of Rs. 19,57,092/- added by the A.O., it found addition of Rs. 10 lakh as correct assessment.
5. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court is not the court where the finding of fact can be questioned unless the same is without jurisdiction or such finding is against provision of law. In our opinion finding on the valuation of construction is a finding of fact arrived, by three forums below that the investment at Rs. 26.99 lakh, shown by the assessee is less than the actual value of the investment made in the construction.
6. Shri Anirudha Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the assessee is not required under any law to get valued the constructions from technically qualified persons, as such, the value of construction shown in her books of account should have been accepted by the respondent authorities. It is further argued that tribunal has erred in law in accepting the valuation got done by the revenue without rejecting the books of account submitted by the assessee. We agree that Section 44A of the Income Tax Act, though requires maintenance of books of account by medical professionals and other professionals but it nowhere provides that it must be based on valuation report of technically qualified persons. However, that does not mean that whatever has been shown by the assessee in his/her books of account must be taken as gospel truth. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that A.O. after inspecting the building where the assessee herself admitted that the accounts are not complete and Rs. 5 lakh more could have been spent in the construction of the building, rightly decided to get valued the construction of building through departmental Valuation Officer from Luknow. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that A.O. has no power to record the statement of the assessee on oath. We do agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that A.O. could not have recorded statement of assessee on oath but once the fact had come to knowledge of the A.O. that there is low investment shown by the assessee whether it came through her admission on oath or otherwise, his satisfaction to invite the departmental Valuation Officer cannot be said to be illegal or unjust. The three authorities below have already applied its mind to the facts of the case and we are not inclined to interfere with the factual satisfaction recorded ultimately by the tribunal. As far as the contention of relying on the report of Valuation Officer, without rejecting the books of account produced by the assessee is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected not only for the reason that the assessee herself admitted at the spot that the accounts were not complete but the valuation report also corroborated said fact. The rejection of the books of account stood implied. The questions of law stand answered accordingly.
7. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal is dismissed.