JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by L. Narasimha Reddy J.-The respondent is firm and is assessed to tax. In its returns submitted for year 1991-92, it has disclosed sum of Rs. 23,75,000 towards cost of construction of building. Incidentally, firm was maintaining books of account. During course of processing return, Assessing Officer referred matter to valuer, who, in turn, reported that estimated cost of building is Rs. 41,33,000. Taking same into account, Assessing Officer added sum of Rs. 17,48,000 as unexplained investment. Feeling aggrieved by that, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) took view that Assessing Officer could not have added amount unless he rejected books of account. Accordingly, he remanded matter to Assessing Officer. Not satisfied with outcome of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), respondent filed I. T. A. No. 1040/Hyd/96 before Hyderabad Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Through its order dated October 25, 2002, Tribunal allowed appeal holding that very reference to Valuation Officer could not have been made, unless Assessing Officer rejected or doubted veracity of books of account of respondent. said order is challenged in this appeal filed under section 260A of Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"). Heard Sri J. V. Prasad, learned standing counsel for appellant and Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for respondent. only dispute is about value of building constructed by respondent firm. respondent furnished its value at Rs. 23,75,000. particulars thereof were mentioned in books of account. Assessing Officer could have doubted value of building, if only he did not believe books of account or rejected them. However, straightaway, he referred matter to valuer. report was taken into account and difference of amount was treated as unexplained investment. Commissioner (Appeals) made observation that no amount could have been added as unexplained investment, unless books of account were doubted or rejected. He impliedly disapproved report of Valuation Officer. However, matter was remanded for fresh exercise in this behalf. It is in this context that respondent filed appeal before Tribunal canvassing correctness of order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and appeal was allowed. books of account maintained by assessee have their own significance and importance in context of assessment under Act. It is on account of availability of books of account, that assessee is relieved from burden of maintaining other evidence. Assessing Officer is conferred with power to satisfy himself about correctness of books of account. In given case, if they are found to be not reliable, he can make observation to that effect and undertake his own exercise, to arrive at conclusion about income and expenditure of assessee. Even Commissioner (Appeals) was of view that books of account commended their own acceptability and any addition of amount towards unexplained investment could have been done only after verification from books. That very observation, if not principle, cuts into justification for referring matter to Valuation Officer. reason is that it is only when Assessing Officer did not take contents of books of account, on their face value, that he could have resorted to independent valuation. It is here, that Tribunal maintained subtle distinction and held that even before ordering valuation of any property by independent valuer in respect of assessee, who maintained books of account, Assessing Officer must, as first step, express his lack of confidence in books of account. That not having been done in instant case, very reference to Valuation Officer cannot be sustained in law. In Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC), hon'ble Supreme Court held that assessing authority cannot refer matter to Departmental Valuation Officer unless books of account maintained by assessee were rejected or disbelieved. same was followed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nirpal Singh v. CIT [2013] 359 ITR 398 (P&H). Though Tribunal did not take note of any precedents, obviously because they were not cited, view taken by it accords with principle laid down by hon'ble Supreme Court. Added to that, assessee-firm is said to have been wound up in year 1992 itself. Though section 142A of Act was amended in year 2004 with retrospective effect from 1972, we find it difficult to sustain exercise undertaken by Assessing Officer on touch stone of that provision. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merits in appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lakshmi Construction