Court sets aside assessment notice for 2011-12 due to valuation confirmation, ending litigation.

The Court set aside the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 as subsequent developments eliminated the basis for the notice. The Assessing Officer referred the valuation of properties to the Department of Valuation Officer, who confirmed the valuation at par with the sale consideration. The Revenue agreed no additions were necessary in the fresh assessment, leading to the notice being set aside, ending the litigation. Other issues raised by the Revenue were left open for future consideration.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual, challenged the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12, which was issued beyond the prescribed period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer indicated one ground for reopening the assessment, related to the sale consideration of two shops. The jantri value of the properties was mentioned as the basis for the reassessment.

The Court allowed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment but did not pass a final order. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer referred the valuation of the properties to the Department of Valuation Officer (DVO), who confirmed the valuation of the properties at par with the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deeds. The Revenue's counsel agreed that there was no basis for making any additions in the assessee's hands regarding the transactions. As a result, it was decided that no additions would be made in the fresh assessment, and the notice was set aside, ending the litigation.

The petition was disposed of, with the Court setting aside the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. The decision was based on subsequent developments that eliminated the basis for issuing the notice, leading to the conclusion that continuing the litigation served no purpose. Other questions raised by the Revenue were left open for future consideration.

---