TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has so been put forward, It has been said that for the next assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1984-85, the valuation of real property of the writ petitioner has been made at the figure of Rs. 1.59 crores whereas the accepted valuation for the assessment year in question was of the order of Rs. 12 lakhs. This is said to be a ground (indeed it is the main ground) of reopening. The affidavit-in-opposition contains serious erroneous statements in that it is alleged that the return of wealth for the assessment year 1983-84 was filed by the assessee on March 19, 1984. It is also incorrectly stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that no appeal has been preferred by the assessee from the order containing the valuation of Rs. 1.59 crores. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the comparative largeness of such valuation in comparison to the valuation for the assessment year in question, a sufficient factor to bring the notice of reopening within the permissible limits of the above words ? It was submitted on the part of the petitioner that it is not. The first case relied upon by the petitioner is Sohan Singh Basi v. Union of India [1991] 192 ITR 431, and that is a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. The court there came to the conclusion that an assessment cannot be reopened on the ground of valuation made on the basis of the balance-sheet of a company for its shares, even if the same is different from the face value of the shares which had been disclosed by the assessee at the time of assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. If an assessment has already been completed on the basis of material facts, and it is not the case of the Department that such assessment could not, in any reasonable view of the matter, have been completed because of the non-disclosure of some necessary and material fact, or such assessment has been vitiated by an erroneous disclosure about. such a fact, the Department cannot reopen the matter. Thus, to justify a reopening, the Department must show at least one substantial fact, which was both material and necessary for the making of the assessment, and which, though it was the duty of the assessee to disclose the same correctly, he did not disclose, or he made an erroneous disclosure about it. Otherwise the jurisdiction to reopen c....