TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under:- 1. Because there being no material, far less any reason to believe, the entire reassessment framed u/s 147 is void ab initio, without jurisdiction bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being no nexus between the co-called material, if any, and the reasons to believe there from, the very issue of notice u/s 148 is without jurisdiction, bad in law, the reassessment framed be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, in as much as there is no disposal of the objections raised pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 4. Because there being no rejection of books of account and there being no show cause as to why a reference u/s 142A be no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 11. Because the DVO's report is only another estimate, hence is not binding upon the AO, reliance placed on the same without cross-examination of by the assessee valuer is bad in law and cannot be adhered to. 12. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the investment in the cost of constructions in 1st & 2nd floor of Block No. 2 and Block 5, which were never constructed by the assessee. 13. Because the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the value of Block No. 07 which block was received by the appellants fully constructed (without roof on 2nd floor) in the purchase of property. 14. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal if the so called unexplained expenses are treated as income u/s. 69 the amount adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer made addition under section 69 of the Act at Rs. 31,20,301/- in assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 22,96,745/- in assessment year 2002-03 on account of unexplained investment in the property. 4. Consequently appeals were filed before the ld. CIT(A) but did not find favour with him. 5. Now the assessee is before the Tribunal. Beside assailing the validity of reopening of assessment, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that even if the reopening of assessment is held to be valid, the addition made on the basis of DVO's report is not sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). The ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the assessee has contended that at the relevant point of time, the Assessing Officer has simply issued a notice under section 143(2) on 2.2.2005 fixing the hearing on 11.2.2005 and thereafter again notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.7.2005 fixing the hearing on 9.8.2005. Even without receiving a reply in response to notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the DVO under section 142A of the Act for estimating the cost of investment in the impugned property. In support of these submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the valuation report submitted by the DVO which was used by the Assessing Officer for making addition on account of unex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment. Therefore, in order to assess the unexplained investment in the property, reference was made to the DVO, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity therein. 2. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer has received certain information with regard to the unexplained investment in the property by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri. Khem Chand Agarwal, Rakabganj, Lucknow and on the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer has formed a belief that unexplained investment in the property was made by the assessee and later on constructed flats which were s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tionable and cannot be appreciated. 3. In the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that before making reference to the DVO for estimating the cost of investment in the construction of property, the books of account maintained by the assessee in this regard has to be rejected, but in the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not even wait for reply to be filed in response to notice under section 143(2) of the Act and what to say about the books of account; and he made a reference to the DVO under section 142A of the Act for estimating the cost of investment in the property. Nothing is available on record on what basis the Assessing Officer has formed a belief that the assessee has not....