TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Reassessment Based on Faulty Report, Stressing Importance of Valid Basis</h1> The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash reassessment proceedings for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1998-99, initiated solely based on ... Reassessment proceedings on ground that assessee has under disclosed the cost of construction - Tribunal has found that merely the Departmental Valuation Officer’s report cannot be a ground for formation of reasons to believe for the purpose of reassessment - Tribunal has also pointed out that the DVO’s report suffers from various defects & mistakes. There being no material available on record, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in finding reassessment proceedings to be invalid ab initio Issues:Assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1998-99 - reassessment under section 147/148 based on Departmental Valuation Officer's report - validity of reassessment proceedings challenged - legality of reassessment under section 147/148 - validity of reassessment based solely on DVO's report - defects in DVO's report - jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings.Analysis:The judgment pertains to three appeals concerning assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1998-99, challenging the reassessment under section 147/148 based on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 147/148 for the mentioned assessment years after noticing a variance in the declared cost of house construction by the assessee and the DVO's valuation. The Tribunal found the reassessment solely based on the DVO's report to be invalid ab initio, citing the lack of a valid basis for 'reason to believe' and highlighted defects in the DVO's report. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to quash the reassessment proceedings.The court referenced a previous case where a Division Bench affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment based on the DVO's report lacked a valid basis for forming a belief of under-disclosure, especially when the valuation was not relevant to the assessment years in question. The court emphasized that the BSR rates of 1998, used by the DVO, were not applicable to earlier assessment years, rendering the reassessment without jurisdiction due to a lack of material supporting under-disclosure of investment.In the current case, the Tribunal similarly found the reassessment proceedings invalid ab initio, emphasizing that the DVO's report alone cannot justify forming reasons to believe for reassessment. The Tribunal noted various defects and mistakes in the DVO's report, reinforcing the lack of a valid basis for reassessment. The court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law was involved and summarily dismissed the appeals.In conclusion, the judgment upholds the Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment proceedings based solely on the DVO's report, emphasizing the importance of a valid basis for forming reasons to believe in reassessment under section 147/148. The court's analysis underscores the necessity of supporting material and the jurisdictional requirements for initiating reassessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
