TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17(1) of the Act. It was pointed out that the said grounds of appeal goes to the root of issue and may be adjudicated first before addressing the other grounds of appeal raised on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to decide grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by assessee before addressing the other grounds of appeal. The said grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 read as under:- "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned reassessment made u/s 17(1) r w s 16(3) was validly reopened in law, in view of the incorrect and inadequate reasons recorded based on Valuation Report of the DVO valuing the land as on 31.03.2001 at Rs. 16,33,78,866/-. 2. The reopening of the impugned assessment based on the DVO report as of a date 31.03.2001 being much an earlier date and which itself is merely an opinion, cannot be a valid basis of reason to belief to validly reopen the assessment. The reassessment being invalid and void ab initio may kindly be cancelled." 4. The assessee has challenged invoking of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment in the case of assessee. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had not furnished return of wealth for inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VO's report in the case of assessee for earlier years, but while completing assessment another approach was adopted for valuing the land in the hands of assessee. She relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Company (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was asked to produce assessment records which were produced and also perused. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also filed report of Assessing Officer dated 17.06.2019 in which reference is made to the plea of assessee that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Company (supra), no reopening can be done on the basis of DVO's report. He has reported that reopening was based on the order passed under section 25(2) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune on 23.03.2007 which was passed after obtaining DVO's report. It was thus, submitted that case of assessee was not reopened solely on the basis of DVO's report. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 17(1) of the Act under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Assessing Officer while carrying out assessment proceedings starting from assessment year 1998-99 had referred the matter for valuation of plot of land to the DVO. Since no valuation report was received from the DVO, Assessing Officer completed assessment. Thereafter, on receipt of valuation from DVO, Commissioner exercised jurisdiction of revision under section 25(2) of the Act and passed order dated 23.03.2007. The basis for passing order of revision is DVO's report received by Assessing Officer. The perusal of valuation report would reflect that as on 31.03.2001, no doubt the valuation was Rs. 16.33 crores, but the DVO had given valuation report upto 31.03.2003 and the Commissioner had passed order under section 25(2) of the Act upto assessment year 2002-03 assessing the wealth at Rs. 20.64 crores. The value assessed by DVO as on 31.03.2003 was Rs. 26.35 crores. However, while recording reasons for issuing notice under section 17(1) of the Act, Assessing Officer had adopted valuation as on 31.03.2001 as the basis. The reasons which have been recorded in the case of assessee are undated but the permission to reopen assessment was sought by the Assessing Officer from Addl.CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Assessing Officer had to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon and it was held that the Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. 14. In the facts of the case, again we will make reference to reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which is the order passed by Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act, dated 23.03.2007. The basis for said order passed by Commissioner in the revisionary capacity is the report of DVO, which was received after completion of assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment years. In other words, basis of reopening is DVO's report received by Assessing Officer, which has been applied by the Commissioner while passing order under section 25(2) of the Act. In this regard, further it was pointed out by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that first of all, the DVO's report is not for the year under consideration and secondly, order of Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act was in exercise of power for assessment year 2002-03. We find merit in the plea of assessee that the report of DVO is not for the relevant years which have been reopened under section 17(1) of the....