2020 (9) TMI 1203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by respondent no.1 u/s 264 of the I.T. Act dated 12-06-2009, (Annexure 6) (b) for quashing the assessment order passed by respondent no.2 u/s 143(3) 147 dt. 8-12-2008 (Annexure 4) as without jurisdiction, void and double assessment and (c) for quashing the valuation report prepared by respondent no.3 as being without any basis and arbitrary and violative of natural justice. (Annexure 2) (ii) To declare the assessment order made under section 143 on 20-12-2006 to be effective and valid operative assessment order in case of the petitioner (Annexure 3) (iii) To grant any other relief for which this Court deem fit and proper under the facts of the case." The trust deficit between the Department and the Assessee, per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disputedly, on 05.01.2006 the Assessing Officer, in exercise of its power under Section 142 (A) of the Income Tax Act called for the report of the Valuation Officer (Valuation Unit), Department of Income Tax. The said report though dated 19th of October, 2006, reached the officer dealing with the file only on 5th of November, 2007. As per this report, the valuation of the built up structure is Rs. 30,31,549/-. Hence, prior thereto, the income assessed by the Assessee, on the subject matter, was accepted to be true and correct for when the petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny), the Assessing Officer never raised any objection to the Valuation Report submitted by the Assessee, as is e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pe of Section 147(b) of the Act. But briefly stated, what is required to be examined is as to whether (a) the Assessee was truthful in disclosing the particulars of income to be assessed; (b) There was material before the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceedings, on which, there is application of mind or not. The order passed in Dhariya Construction Co. (supra), in toto, is reproduced as under: "Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer h....