TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken on the basis of DVO's report, as the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Courts in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendran reported in 288 ITR 312 (Mad) does not apply to the facts of the case?" The brief facts of the case are as follows : The Assessee, namely, M/s Sachin Hotels (P) Ltd. started construction of a hotel somewhere in July 1997 i.e. in the financial year 1997-98, relevant to the Assessing Year 1998-99. The hotel which was being built opposite the Railway Station at Haridwar, was completed in September, 2001. The Company filed its return for the Financial Year 2001-02 only. It had maintained books of accounts since its inception and the cost of construction was declared each Financial Year-wise. For the Assessment Year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed under Section 260 A of the Act by the Revenue. Substantial question of law has already been referred above. The present Appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1998-99. The undisputed factual position in the present case is that the Assessee has maintained the books of account for the relevant Assessment Year. These books of account have been accepted and, therefore, question would be as to whether even after accepting the books of account submitted by the Assessee, can the Assessment Officer pass an order of re-assessment solely on the basis of the reportf the DVO. This Court in another Income Tax Appeal, namely, Commissioner of Income-Tax and another v. Bhawani Shankar Vyas (and other connected appeals) reported in 2009-(311)-ITR-000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the DVO, the Assessing Officer cannot pass a reassessment order purely on the basis of the DVO's report. This is because at the end of the day, the report of a DVO is only an opinion. Undoubtedly, it is an opinion by an "expert", but it must be collaborated with some other document in order to justify the re-assessment order. It is for this reason that the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. V.T. Rajendran [2007] 288 ITR 312 (Mad) has held that purely on the basis of DVO's report re-assessment order cannot be passed. This Court is in full agreement with the law cited by the Assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax v. V.T. Rajendran [2007] 288 ITR 312 (Mad) and holds that re-assessment order cannot be passed....