Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not struck out the irrelevant portion in the notice. It was not clear whether he had levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order also, it was not clear that whether he had levied the penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments in construction of building, on receipt of valuation report from the District Valuation Officer and the addition was not related to any items mentioned in para 10(d) of the Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated July 11, 2018  ( 2018) 405 ITR 29(st) . This being so, the Department was precluded from filing the appeal since the monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was Rs. 50 lakhs, as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. There was no evidence to show that the assessee had understated the construction expenses in its accounts. The only basis for the addition in the assessment as well as for the levy of penalty was the Department Valuer’s estimated figure. A valuation estimate, without more, could not justify a finding of concealment(AY.2000-01 to 2004-05)