As per case facts, the assessee initially declared a certain income, but the case was later scrutinized for suspected escapement of income from building construction. A significant investment in construction ... was found in a subsequent balance sheet. To determine the actual cost, a District Valuation Officer (DVO) was involved, who estimated a much higher value, leading to an alleged unexplained investment. The assessee appealed, arguing the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly referred to the DVO without rejecting the books of accounts and used incorrect valuation rates. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The central legal question arose as to whether the Appellate Tribunal correctly upheld the DVO referral without an explicit rejection of books of accounts, contravening Supreme Court precedents, and if the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to address specific appeal grounds. Finally, the court held that the AO had indeed considered and implicitly rejected the assessee's inconsistent books of accounts before seeking the DVO's report. The court clarified that the AO's actions were justified given the recorded contradictions in the assessee's financial disclosures and the construction agreement, thus distinguishing the cited Supreme Court cases. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.