RAM SWARUP, J.M. Order This appeal by assessee is directed agaist CIT(A) s order dt. 21st Sept., 1984 relating to asst. yr. 1980-81. 2. main dispute raised by appellant in this appeal is that CIT(A) was not justified in making addition of Rs. 39,000 on account of difference in valuation report of approved valuer and that of Departmental valuer. 3. Briefly stated facts of case are that assessee invested sum of Rs. 2,07,340 on construction of house property. assessee relied upon report of approved Valuer, but ITO referred matter to Valuation Cell and cost of house was estimated at Rs. 2,87,200. ITO placing reliance on report of valuation officer rejected report submitted by private Valuer. On appeal before CIT(A), it was argued that additions made by departmental valuer are not supported by cogent evidence. comparative chart was also filed to show that under various extra items beyond normal construction for which schedules were available, Departmental valuer had over valued property by as much as Rs. 92.709. main plank of argument of authorised representative before CIT(A) was that valuation of Departmental Valuer in respect of extra items was exhorbitant but he has no objection in regard to valuation of super structure which according to him was based on scheduled rates. CIT(A) after considering submission of authorised representative held as under: "I have carefully considered various objections led by ld. counsel As regards marble work for wall lining, and white marble floors, Departmental Valuer has estimated cost at Rs. 274 and Rs. 207 per sq. metre against Rs. 25 by registered valuer. Registered valuer certainly has grossly under stated this value in as much as Rs. 25 per sq. mt. Could work out to Rs. 25 per sq. ft. This is rediculous in as much as even labour charges during period were much higher than this rate. appellant has produced certain vouchers in respect of purchases of marble by appellant s husband during period of construction. marble tiles 1 x1, were purchased from Delhi at Rs. 11 per sq. ft. on which sales-tax 10 per cent plus freight etc. of 5 per cent was incurred. On this basis cost of marble per sq. m. works to Rs. 122. To this is to be added sales-tax at 10 per cent and expenses at 5 per cent making total of about Rs. 140 per sq. mt. Taking Rs. 3 as labour charges, cost per sq. m. would work out to Rs. 170. This, to my mind, represents fairly reasonable estimate of cost of using marble tiles. Departmental Valuer has taken cost at Rs. 207. There is thus excess of Rs. 37 per sq. m. extra cost adopted by Departmental Valuer has been worked out at Rs. 46 25 . If similar rate of valuation is adopted for marble slabs, excess would be Rs. 1264. As regards Kota stone flooring, mosaic flooring, polyvinyl chloride tiles and crazy flooring both approved valuer who has taken additional cost at nil and Departmental Valuer who has not given credit for any savings in normal flooring appears to be off mark in their estimation. cost of cement flooring which is normally much less than cost of Kota stone and other type of flooring construction by appellant and, therefore, there was positively additional cost involved. At same time, while putting expensive type of flooring, savings on account of not having cement flooring should be given credit for. Taking into account cost of Kota stone and other type of flooring materials, I am of opinion that additional cost would represent more or less 50 per cent of total cost estimated by Departmental Valuer. excess valuation as such would amount to Rs. 7790. As regards cantlever projection, cost is always more as it has to be steel concrete construction without support. There will be saving as no support has to be given to such projection. approved valuer has taken is as covered by plinth area rate while no credit has been given by Departmental Valuer. Keeping inview savings and additional cost involved in this construction, half of cost is considered as additional cost for having cantilever projection. inflation of Rs. 4,400. As regards false ceiling of plaster of paris again wrong being savings not accounted for by Departmental Valuer. I therefore, estimate same at Rs. 2,200. And finally, there is evidence with appellant that except front walls all other walls were already there when plot was purchased. Departmental Valuer has not given any finding that wall had duly been constructed by appellant. It is not known how IAC while approving order under s. 144B observed that walls were not same as existed earlier. On facts of case, cost of these walls has to be excluded not having incurred in course of construction giving appellant relief of Rs. 8784. excess cost on above items would be Rs. 46 25 Rs. 1264 Rs. 7790 Rs. 4400 Rs. 2200 8784 28,863. As regards deduction for self supervision, there are number of Tribunal s decisions wherein it has been held that savings on account of personal supervision would be normally of order of 10 per cent. Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Jagat Prakash Chandra Saxena held that such deduction should be allowed at 10 per cent of cost and as regards architect fees, in absence of any evidence that full time architect had been employed, such cost can reasonably be estimated at 1 per cent of total cost. As regards other party items, there does not appear to be much justification for interference and even otherwise, amounts involved are rather petty. Under circumstances, cost of construction is worked out as below: Cost of construction as per D.V. Rs. 2,99,740 Less: Excess cost estimated by him as above Rs. 28,860 . Rs. 2,70,880 supervision saving at 10 per cent Balance Rs. 27,088 . Rs. 2,43,792 Add. Architect fees Rs. 2,400 . Rs. 2,46,192 . or . Rs. 2,46,000 Since appellant had disclosed value at Rs. 2,07,000 addition of Rs. 39,000 remains un-explained." Against aforesaid finding it was contended that CIT(A) was not justified in only allowing supervision savings at 10 per cent. authorised representative contended before us that generally credit for self supervision was given between 10 per cent to 15 per cent and Tribunal had allowed such concession in past. Besides it, it was also contended that appellant had not paid any architect fee except for original drawings. addition on account of architect fee is un-called for. 4. On other hand, Departmental Representative contended before us that CIT(A) has allowed 10 per cent supervision savings because construction work was not given to contractor, 10 per cent supervision savings was fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. On other hand, it was also contended that assessee on one side claimed that she herself supervised construction and at same time she claimed architect fee at Rs. 2,400 and proceeding further Departmental Representative submitted before us that assessee because of her relationship with architect did not pay fees of original drawing, then there was no occasion for her to have paid fee for supervision of construction. 5 . We have considered submission of parties and have gone through paper-book filed by assessee and Department. CIT(A) has worked out cost of construction as above. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in allowing supervision saving at 10 per cent as it is fair and reasonable n d there is no force in contention of authorised representative that supervision savings at 15 per cent ought to have been allowed. This submission of authorised representative, therefore, has no force. 6 . As regards architect fee it may be pointed out that assessee on account of her personal relationship with Architect did not pay any architect fee except for original drawings and he had only claimed small amount of Rs. 2,400 as architect fee. Considering superior quality of construction and relationship of assessee with Architect, we deem it proper that architect fee ought to have been allowed in assessee s case. We, therefore, allowed architect fee to extent of Rs. 2,400. Since appellant has disclosed value of construction at Rs. 2,07,000 only after keeping into account of cost of construction worked out by CIT (A) addition of Rs. 36,600 remained unexplained. 7. authorised representative further contended before us that cost of extra items had been grossly over estimated by Departmental valuer. He has drawn our attention towards comparative chart of two valuers. We have considered submission of authorised representative and have also through superior quality of construction in respect of Kota stone flooring, mosaic flooring polyvinyl chloride tile flooring and crazy flooring etc. It is clear from finding of CIT(A) recorded in para 1.3 of order that Departmental valuer has estimated cost at Rs. 274 and Rs. 207 per sq. mtr. as against Rs. 25 by registered valuer. Considering superior quality of construction, we find it difficult to agree with report of approved valuer. CIT(A) in para 1.2 of his order has given detailed description about superior quality of construction. extra cost was rightly pointed out by Valuation Officer in view of high quality of superior construction which had been estimated by registered valuer Rs. 25 per sq. mtr. and on very face of it estimated made by approved valuer is not only rediculous but it appears that registered valuer had gone out of way to favour assessee and in our opinion opinion of registered valuer is his worthy of credit. CIT(A) has considered report of Departmental valuer and has given marginal adjustment as and when found necessary by him. CIT(A) accordingly granted relief of Rs. 4,6 25 . He has given adjustment of Rs. 12,041 of marble slads on same analogy. In our considered opinion, cost of extra items had fully been examined by CIT(A) and we find that CIT(A) was perfectly justified in disallowing claim of assessee in this regard for reasons recorded therein. Adopting same reasoning, we reject contention of authorised representative. 8 . next dispute is in respect of investment of Rs. 21,400 which according to assessee is her past savings out of tution income earned during asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1979-80. authorised representative for assessee contended before us that authorities below rejected claim of assessee on ground that assessee did not submit returns in respect of tution income. Proceeding further, it was contended that assessee only returned part of income, but remaining part remained with her. ITO disallowed claim of assessee about savings of Rs. 21,400 alleged to have been saved from tution income. On appeal before CIT(A), it was contended that ITO was not justified in disallowing claim of assessee merely on ground that return had not been filed. CIT(A) after considering submission of authorised representative observed as under : "I have considered these contention. And though I find that for reasons given by ITO disallowance is unsustainable, however, on facts otherwise collected in course of appellate proceedings justify addition. Simply because returns had not been filed is no ground to withhold explanation for source of investment when earning of income is not denied. However, I find that appellant s husband Shri O. P. Grover who is normally claimed to be maintaining household had withdrawn sum of Rs. 18,000 for household expenses in earlier year. For two years under consideration, in first year there was no withdrawal by him whereas in second year withdrawal was only Rs. 10,000. It shows that income earned by appellant had been utilised to meet household expenses and, therefore, this sum was not available for to meet house investment in house property. On this facts, I hold that ITO was justified in not giving set off of Rs. 21,400 against investment in property." 9. On other hand, Departmental Representative contended before us that assessee is school teacher in Convent school (Carmel High School, Mahanagar, Lucknow) and in normal circumstances she has to maintain in high standard of english school and in order to maintain herself she has to income expenses on transport, cosmetic and other items of daily requirement, keeping in with her status. It is not denied that school teacher of convent school has to maintain superior status of her upkeep. 10. We have considered submissions of parties and we find from chart submitted by assessee that Shri V. P. Grover has made following drawings: Assessment year: Rs. 1977-78 12,000.00 1978-79 18,000.00 1979-80 1980-81 12,000.00 1981-82 48,750.00 CIT(A) observed in impugned order that Shri V. P. Grovar claimed to be maintaining house-hold affairs and he has only withdrawn Rs. 18,000 f o r house-hold expenses in earlier year, for two years under consideration in first year there was no withdrawal by him whereas in second year withdrawal was only Rs. 10,000. CIT(A) drew inference under these circumstances that income earned by appellant had been utilised to meet house-hold expenses and, therefore, this sum was not available for investment in house-hold property. explanation of authorised representative given before us was that in earlier year Rs. 18,000 was withdrawn and there was some savings and that saving was utilised in asst. yr. 1979-80. This submission of authorised representative does not appeal to us for reason that assessee had constructed house of such superior quality being teacher in English medium school. Thus there is no force in contention of assessee that she has nothing to spend on house hold expenses. low withdrawal of Shri V. P. Grover reveals that assessee had no occasion to save anything our of her tution income. However, there is no evidence on record to establish that she had saved Rs. 21,400 out of tution income. Thus on these facts, CIT(A) was perfectly justified in confirming finding of ITO in this regard and he had rightly disallowed set off Rs. 21,400 investment in property. We accordingly confirm this finding of CIT(A). 1 1 . other dispute is regarding non-acceptance of loan of Rs. 1,10,000 from appellant s mother-in-law for purpose of construction of house. case of appellant is that she had borrowed sum of Rs. 1,10,000 form her mother-in-law and in support thereof she filed confirmatory letter issued by Smt. Saraswati Devi. It was also contended that over period of years from 1977 to 1980 loan was granted in piece-meal. Proceeding further, it was contended by authorised representative that Smt. Saraswati Devi had capacity to advance loan she was regularly assessed to income-tax on substantial income in past faw years. authorised representative proceeding further contended before us that authorities below not justified in rejecting plea of assessee regarding advancement of loan and its investment in house when assessee had proved source of loan as well as its advancement by way of filing confirmatory letter. ITO rejected claim of assessee in this regard. appeal was dismissed and CIT(A) observed as under : I have considered these contentions but find no merit in same. There various factors to suggest that Smt. Sarawati Devi, mother-in-law of appellant had not advanced any money to appellant for construction of property. Firstly, she was stated to be illiterate, person in affidavit filed before ITO and only thumb impression was used in place of signatures. As against this certificate confirming loan is alleged to have been signed by her in Hindi. statement on oath given in affidavit is certainly to be preferred and as per this affidavit she could not sigh her name. confirmation latter as such cannot be accepted as genuine and cannot now be proved as disproved as lady is now dead. In course of appellate hearing appellant who appeared submitted that she was not having good relation with her mother-in-law as she was second wife of Mr. Mr. V. B. Grover and mother-in-law was against such marriage. If there was such strained relation, it cannot be presumed that old lady would have at all advanced any loans to her daughter-in-law. Thirdly, Smt. Saraswati Devi died way back on 15th Nov., 1980 but no estate duty return had been filed till matter regarding genuineness of loan came up in assessment proceedings in appellant s case. It was only subsequently that estate duty return had been filed wherein loans had been included as part of estate. Such as evidence cannot be admitted as genuine being only after thought to explain loan. Fourthly, Smt. Saraswati Devi had filed list of sundry debtors as on 31st March, 1980 while filing her return. said list adds upto not more than Rs. 50,000 and does not include any loan to Smt. Promila Grover. All these facts amply go to prove that appellant had not received any loan from her mother-in-law and that she is trying to take credit for loans now that lady is no more and to explain source of investment. Last but not least, it is impossible to believe that old lady would be keeping as much as over lakh of rupees in cash at home particularly when she was not carrying on well with her daughter-in-law who was other occupant of house. Mr. V. P. Grover is business man and in need of funds and for that purpose was borrowing from all and sundry. Being only son, it cannot be expected that on one hand he would be borrowing funds from outsiders whereas his mother would be keeping such large sum of money at home. It is nobody s experience that any body staying in town like Lucknow which is rather unsafe from security point of view that person who would be keeping such large sum of money at home. From all angles only one conclusion can be drawn that loan is made up story and not fact. appellant has only tried to explain source of investment taking shelter under loan from her mother-in-law. I am, therefore, fully convinced that ITO had rightly rejected genuineness of this loan and I do not find any reason to interfere." authorised representative contended before us that Smt. Saraswati Devi (deceased) mother-in-law and assessee (daughter-in-law) had good relations and in estate duty return loan was shown by deceased Saraswati Devi and it shows that she had capacity to advance loan. It was further contended that Smt. Saraswati Devi (deceased) had 30 tolas of gold with her and she sold it and in 1977 value of gold was about Rs. 30,000 and thus had sufficient source with her to advance loan. 12. On other hand Departmental Representative contended before us that husband of Smt. Saraswati Devi died in 1949 and she had seven daughters and out of seven daughters four were married in 1949 and three was married in 1950-1962 and 1972. Therefore, Smt. Saraswati Devi had to arrange marriage of three daughters after death of her husband and Shri V. P. Grover was in past selling vegetables as hawker and in 1958 he was employed in general Insurance Department and in 1960 he left service. As regards difference of 30 tolas of gold, it was contended by Departmental Representative that Smt. Saraswati Devi would have given 30 tolas of gold to her there daughters whose marriage she managed herself. As regards her there daughters whose marriage she managed herself. As regards confirmatory letter, it was pointed out by Departmental Representative that authorities below have rightly refused to accept confirmatory letter in view of fact that Smt. Saraswati Devi was illiterate person and she did not know how to put her signature. Therefore, confirmatory letter is ingenue and authorities below have rightly rejected it. It was further contended by Departmental Representative that no wealth-tax returns were filed showing wealth of Rs. 1.10 lakhs which was allegedly advanced as loan to assessee. Even in estate duty return this amount was not shown and during income-tax proceedings when matter of loan came up for discussion thereafter it was shown in estate duty return. besides it, it was also intended that Smt. Saraswati Devi in past filed return on income of Rs. 7,000 and it does not support case of assessee that she had filed returns showing substantial income in past. Departmental Representative repelled this argument of authorised representative where by authorised representative asserted that authorities below had not given adequate opportunity to prove credit worthiness of Smt. Saraswati Devi by saying that number of opportunities were given as per order-sheet (Departmental paperbook page Nos. 1 to 4). In reply authorised representative contended before us that since adequate opportunity had not been pro9veded to assessee to establish source of loan, therefore, matter may be sent back to ITO or CIT(A) to examine this matter. Departmental Representative, therefore, strongly supported orders of authorities below. 13. We have considered submission of parties. It is true that previous assessment of Smt. Saraswati Devi were re-framed on returned income of Rs. 7,000 Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 9,000 and that would go to show that she was not assessed to tax on higher income and as such on basis of returned figure it cannot be presumed that she was having sufficient means and was also capable to advancing such huge loan. Departmental Representative at time of argument pointed out that assessee is second wife of Shri V. P. Grover and Smt. Saraswati Devi was very much annoyed and children of Shri V. P. Grover from first wife were living with Smt. Saraswati Devi and under these circumstances relation was strained and there was no occasion for Smt. Saraswati Devi to have advanced loan. authorised representative, however, supplemented his plank of argument by showing that is true that Smt. Saraswati Devi was angry with assessee only at time of marriage and in due course relationship balance cordial. But there is nothing on record to show that Smt. Saraswati Devi had cordial relations with assessee at time of construction of house. If it was so why children from first wife were living with Smt. Saraswati Devi. It goes further to establish that there is no force in this contention of authorised representative. confirmatory letter filed by assessee in respect of advancement of loan did not inspire confidence to authorities below. reason had been mentioned by CIT(A) in para 3.2 mentioned above. reason so given by CIT(A) is very convincing because Smt. Saraswati Devi admitted her to be illiterate person in affidavit filed before ITO and she put her thumb impression in place of thereon. It was also pointed out by CIT(A) that Smt. Saraswati Devi submitted returns in past and she had only put her thumb impressions in place of signatures. CIT(A) has rightly mentioned in order that statement recorded on oath is certainly to be preferred and as such confirmatory letter was rightly rejected by authorities below. There are other circumstance mentioned by authorities below that strained relationship between Smt. Saraswati Devi (deceased) and assessee would be impoundment in advancement of loan. This circumstance also goes against assessee. CIT(A) has further mentioned about other circumstance which goes to show that Smt. Saraswati Devi died on 15th Nov., 1980 and no estate duty return filed till matter regarding genuineness of t h e loan came up for consideration in assessment proceedings in appellant s case and subsequent to this affair estate duty return was filed and in that return this loan was shown. This evidence of disclosure of loan as estate duty return on very face of it was rightly disbelieved by authorities below because it is nothing but after thought and in any circumstance such evidence cannot be said to be genuine and convincing. There is another circumstance which goes against assessee to show that loan was not genuine. Smt. Saraswati Devi now deceased had filed list of sundry debtors as on 31st March, 1980 while filing her return and in that list she had shown credits not more than 50,000 and does not include any loan to Smt. Promila Grover. CIT(A) in also placed reliance on fact that Smt. Saraswati Devi before her death was living alone in city like Lucknow which is rather unsafe from security point of view. As such in those circumstances, hard cash more than lakh cannot be kept in house. This circumstance also goes against assessee because in such circumstances widow would not like to keep such huge amount ranging more than lakh at her place. Having considered all facts and circumstances of case as pointed out above, we are of opinion opinion that ld. CIT(A) has rightly disbelieved case of assessee. authorised representative before us requested that matter may be remitted back to ITO so as to provide adequate opportunity to him to prove his case. This argument, in our opinion, is of no avail for reason that ITO had granted number of opportunities to assessee to prove source and to lead evidence, and same was not availed. It is clear from order-sheet as referred to above that number of opportunities were given from 22nd Dec., 1982 onwards but assessee did not avail this opportunities for reasons best known to him and on other hand dilatory tactics was adopted to delay proceedings. Under these circumstances, it is not proper to consider request of authorised representative. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of opinion that order of CIT(A) is based on sound reasons and we do not find anything on record to take contrary view. We accordingly confirm finding of CIT(A). 14. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** SMT. PRAMILA GROVER v. INCOME TAX OFFICER