V. DONGZATHANG, A.M.: In these appeals Revenue raises following common grounds: "1. ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that property belongs to AOP. ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of account of unexplained investment made by ITO. order of ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts be set aside and order of ITO be restored." building was purchased by S/Shri Ram Chand Gupta, Gyanesh Chand Atal & Ganesh Chand Gupta for Rs. 33,000 on 22nd May, 1964. individual accounts of these persons were debited in respect of purchase price and building was registered in name of these three persons. Subsequently building was reconstructed and market known as "Mahashaya Market" was put up. assessee had claimed that total investment in property construction was made by M/s Shikshak Bandhu, Aligarh for Rs. 46,483 and M/s Hindustani Book Depot Rs. 30,575. assessees also claimed that all partners of above two firms became co-owners of property and members of AOP because market was constructed by partners of firm by utilising money from two firms. At time of assessment ITO did not fully accept claim of assessee in regard to ownership because transfer was not according to Transfer of Property Act. However, property was treated as belonging to AOP by ITO in light of directions of IAC. Similarly cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 1,97,000 as against Rs. 77,057 shown in books of M/s Hindustani Book Depot and M/s Shikshak Bandhu Press. difference of Rs. 1,10,000 which remains unexplained according to ITO was added to income of AOP as well as in hands of firm. Aggrieved by said order assessee took up matter in appeal before appellate authorities. When matter came up to Tribunal Tribunal set aside order of first appellate authority and restored matter to file of CIT(A) with following directions: "We direct accordingly and restore this issue to his file for deciding whether property in question belonged to AOP of Mahashaya Market or whether it belonged to two firms in proportions of investments made by each of them. learned CIT(A) has already resorted to ITO question of quantum of addition to be made in respect of unexplained investment in asst. yr. 1974-75 but before going into that matter, it will be necessary for CIT(A) to decide question of ownership and thereafter suitable directions direction could be given if necessary to ITO as to quantum of addition to be made by way of unexplained investment." CIT(A) accordingly passed impugned order and held that property belonged to AOP namely M/s Mahashaya Market and there was no reasonable ground for making additions in hands of two firms for unexplained investment. Even with regard tot he unexplained investment CIT(A) held that there was no reasonable ground for such addition as Revenue has not brought on record any specific unexplained investment. Rejecting estimate of Valuation Officer, CIT(A) accepted investment as shown in book and deleted additions on merit also. Revenue is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. With regard to first ground same need not detain us as mater has been properly dealt with by IAC himself while matter was considered by him on reference under s. 144B. in that case ITO came to following conclusion which was duly approved by AAC as follows: In view of facts of case mentioned above, it is held that present AOP is constituted by S/Shri R. C. Gupta, G. C. Atal and G. G. Gupta. As regards firms in question, they have only advanced money for construction of property in which firms cannot legally be treated as co-owners or members of AOP. Normally there cannot be AOP in respect of property income provided that shares of individual members are specified. In present case individual shares of members are not specified and ascertained, more so because two co- owner is partner of another firm and money advanced by these firms for construction is not in proportion to share of each co-owner. Status shall thus be taken to be AOP constituted by above three members." In view of that specific finding Revenue cannot have grievance against status of AOP allowed by CIT(A). This ground is accordingly rejected. With regard to additions of unexplained investment in hands of firms namely M/s Hindustani Books Depot and M/s Shikshak Bandhu also it will be relevant to quote there finding of ITO in assessment order itself, where he has recorded: "The two firms have no doubt advanced Rs. 30,575 and Rs. 46,482 totalling being Rs. 77,057 which remains roughly 1/3rd of total investment. Advancing money for construction does not amount to ownership. amount can be treated as loans or gifts. payment of local tax does not result in any ownership." That being specific finding of ITO it will not be justified to make addition of unexplained investment in hands of firms unless there is any specific evidence to shown that these firms actually advanced money over and above amount shown in books. That being not case here CIT(A) i s quite justified in deleting additions made in hands of firms. We accordingly uphold his order in this regard. With regard to addition in hands of assessee AOP M/s Mahashaya Market, CIT(A) made specific finding that assessee was maintaining regular books of account and expenditure has been debited in books which are being accepted in past. CIT(A) therefore, held that difference of opinion between exact amount of investment shown by assessee in book and valuation made by Valuation Cell on estimate basis should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources. Since investment in construction of property was met by assessee by obtaining loan from two firms where specific entries have been made from year to year, ITO was not justified in estimating cost of construction on basis of valuation made by Valuation Cell on estimate basis. In this regard IAC(Assessment) also give following comments while issuing instructions under s. 144B as follows: "You have proposed initiation of action under s. 271(1)(c) for addition in regard to unexplained investment keeping in view fact that estimate of cost of construction by our valuation cell is on basis of fixed rate per sq. meter of construction while assessee has furnished details of he investment actually debited in books of each year, determination of quantum of unexplained investment is only as result of difference that has arisen on account of estimate, it is itself matter of difference of opinion only." That being view of IAC it cannot be said that CIT(A) was not justified in holding that no addition was called for on basis of estimate only. We, therefore, uphold order of CIT(A) in this regard also. In view of above finding appeals of Revenue in case of M/s Hindustani Book Depot and M/s Shikshak Bandhu Press also fail and are dismissed. In result appeals fail and are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. MAHASHAYA MARKET