Court invalidates order, emphasizes objection consideration, deems notice unjustified post full income disclosure.

The court held that respondents cannot shift their stand without allowing objections, invalidated the order based on "concealment of investment," and found the petitioner not obligated to submit a valuation report. Notice under section 148 post-assessment order was deemed unjustified if income was fully disclosed. The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of objections, setting aside the notice and related proceedings. The writ petition was allowed with no costs awarded, parties were to be informed of the order, and urgent copies were available upon request.

---

---

Issues:
1. Shifting stand of respondents from "escaped income" to "concealment of investment" in notice under section 148.
2. Requirement of filing valuation report before valuation cell by petitioner.
3. Validity of issuing notice under section 148 after receiving valuation report post-assessment order.
4. Consideration of objections raised by petitioners in the order dated December 8, 2009.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The respondents cannot change their stand from "escaped income" to "concealment of investment" without allowing the petitioner to file objections regarding the new ground. The order based on "concealment of investment" was deemed invalid due to lack of opportunity for objection.

Issue 2: The petitioner was not obligated to produce a valuation report before the valuation cell as per Section 142A of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer's insistence on the report was deemed incorrect, especially when relevant documents were examined during assessment and the returned figure was accepted.

Issue 3: Citing the precedent in CIT v. Shirinbai Abdullabhai, it was established that notice under section 148 cannot be justified solely on the grounds of receiving a valuation report post-assessment order if the assessee had already disclosed income fully and truly.

Issue 4: The order dated December 8, 2009, was found to lack proper consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners. Referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, it was emphasized that due consideration must involve active application of mind and dealing with all relevant aspects, which was found lacking in this case. Consequently, the notice dated July 16, 2009, and all related proceedings were set aside and quashed.

The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The parties were permitted to take note of the order for communication purposes, and urgent copies were to be provided upon request.

---