2009 (12) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansoi, respondent No.1. The assessment year involved is 2006-07. In brief the facts are that after the petitioner filed the return, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the said Act. Accordingly, notices were issued by respondent No.1. The petitioners were represented at the time of proceedings. The case was discussed and heard. The submission is the assessee had disclosed fully and truly the material facts. In the assessment order dated December 29, 2008 under section 143(3) it was recorded that "On examination of the relevant documents no specific and mention-worthy discrepancies were found. Therefore, the return figure is accepted". Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued the notice dated July 16, 2009 under section 148 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the petitioners on November 11, 2009 were considered in the order dated December 8, 2009. 3. So far as the first issue is concerned the answer has to be in the negative. Since the petitioners were called upon to file objection to the notice under section 148 proposing to reopen the assessment on the ground a sum of Rs. 73,219 had "escaped income", the respondents cannot shift their stand and pass an order on the ground of "concealment of investment" as the petitioners had no opportunity to file objection regarding such "concealment". 4. So far as the second issue is concerned, the question is whether the petitioner is required to produce valuation report before the valuation cell. I find from paragraph 1 of the order dated December....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome fully and truly and the return was accepted, notice under section 148 cannot be issued on the ground that the valuation report was received subsequent to the passing of the order. 7. The final question is whether respondent No. 1 while passing the order dated December 8, 2009 in the proceedings under section 147 had considered the written objection. The apex court in the case of Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in [2008] 4 SCC 144 has held that " The term ' consider' means to think over ; it connotes that there should be active application of mind. In other words the term ' consider' postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter". Thus, "consideration" means taking into account and dealing....