2012 (12) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t which is unjustified and further affirming the valuation made by the Valuer engaged by the department without providing opportunity to the assessee and thus the addition made on the basis of arbitrary valuation is unjustified. 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee, and Shri R.A. Verma, learned Senior DR. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is identical with the ground raised by further submitting that firstly Shri N.D. Mathani, registered Valuer for immovable properties under category I was not competent/entitled to make valuation of stock of the furniture and further the Valuer did not come to value the furniture on the appointed date, therefore, the addition made o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....furniture due to fire, in appellant's own case was done by the Registered Valuer having similar qualifications. The appellant's claim for loss due to fire was settled by insurers on the basis of the Registered Valuers Report. The reference to Registered Valuer have been validly made by the A.O. The appellant have not been able to point out any substantive defect in the valuation report. In these circumstances the A.O. had no option but to accept the valuation report. He has validly done the valuation of stock and has correctly worked out the excess stock. In view of the above addition of Rs. 217148/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed." The facts, in brief, are that the assessee derives income from trading in furniture, decl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder of the amount in difference. During hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the letter dated 7.12.2009 addressed to the ITO wherein it has been categorically pointed out/claimed that no opportunity of being heard before making the valuation was given to the assessee. It was asserted that vide Valuer's letter dated 7.3.2007, addressed to the assessee, the Valuer did not visit the premises of the assessee on the appointed date on 8.3.2007 and thereafter no such visit was made by the Valuer till date, therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the valuation by such Valuer. Our attention was invited to page 56 of the paper book regarding letter dated 7th March, 2007 of the Valuer. This a....