TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was mentioned that the assessment was completed subject to the outcome of the valuation report of the Valuation Officer. Thereafter, the said report was received on 06.04.2011 by the AO in which the value of the property sold by the assessee in the year under consideration was determined at Rs. 3,66J7,300/- as against Rs. 77,50,000/- declared by the assessee. Pursuant thereto, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 09.04.2012. 3. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee objected to value determined by the Valuation Officer. The AO dismissed those objections and made an addition of Rs. 48,21,216/- on account of understated capital gain in the hands of the assessee by order dated 10.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions made by the Ld. ITO without going to the facts and contentions made by me." 6. Grounds No.1 to 4 pertain to the validity and the jurisdiction of the AO to have issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR submits that the sole reason for issuance of notice of reassessment was the valuation report and that is only an expert opinion. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Sh. Saidan Kapoor, ITA No. 4496/De1/2012 dated 13.01.2016. He further submits that all the required documents were submitted during the original proceedings and the material obtained subsequent to the assessment order cannot be used to reopen an assessment. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is therefore prayed before your honor that may kindly file the notice and drop the proceedings u/s.148 Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has cited following cases in support of his case. (i) Smt. Kantamani Venkata Satyavati Vs. ITO (1967) 64 ITR 516 (AP) (ii) ITO Vs. United Hoyels Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 16 TTJ (Del) 176 (iii) New Excelsior Theater Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.B. Naik ITO (1990) 83 CTR (Bombay) 62 (iv) M/s. KP Vaghes vs. ITO (1998) 24 CTR (SC) 358 (v) M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT and ors (1995) 238 ITR 57 (del) (vi) M/s. Tara Chand Moudra vs. UOI and ors (2000) ITR 187 (Raj.)" 8. It can be seen from the objections raised by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings that there was no challenge to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at what is to be seen is "whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department can reopen the case. The sufficiency of correctness of the material is not to be considered at this stage". Relying on this decision, the Apex Court, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman, 316, while considering the issuance of notice under section 147 of the Acty prior to the amendment of 2009, has held that the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant and at the initial stage, what is required is 'reason-to believe but not established fact of escapement of income. It further held that "at the stage" of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vancy of the reasons that can be looked into and not the sufficiency [S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC)." 10. In view thereof, the grounds raised by the assessee relating to the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act are dismissed. Grounds no. 1 to 4 are dismissed. 11. Grounds No.5, 6 and 7 relate to the correctness of the valuation report. The Ld. AR contends that the revenue was not justified to accept the value mentioned in the sale deeds relied upon by the Valuation Officer and rejecting the comparable cases given by the assessee. 12. I have heard the submissions and perused the valuation report. The objections raised by the assessee during the course of assessment are as under:- "That the valuation has t....