TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Sanghani for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order dated 18.3.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") as well as Notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be issued for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 5.2 The petitioner furnished reply to the show-cause notice vide communication dated 19.3.2022. It was explained by the petitioner that the re-assessment had been initiated solely upon the DVO's report. It was further alleged that there is no independent application of mind at the end of the respondent prior to initiating re-assessment proceedings in the case of the petitioner for the year under consideration, rather the respondent has solely relied upon DVO's report. In view of such fact given by DVO in his report, the petitioner alleged that the information based on which the case of the petitioner has been reopened, do not fall within the ambit of information, as defined in the Scheme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25.4.2023 and the Assessment Order dated 18.3.2023 along with the order dated 29.3.2022 passed under Section 148(d) of the Act and notice of even date under Section 148 of the Act are under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could not have referred the matter to the DVO and the respondent could not have assumed the jurisdiction only on the ground of report of the DVO as the respondent Assessing Officer has referred and relied upon the DVO Report and dismissed the objections raised by the Assessor. 7. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148A(b) of the Act, together with the reply filed by the petitioner and the order disposing of the objections dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it emerges that during course of Assessment proceedings, the matter was referred to the DVO, who vide his report valued the investment of Projects to the tune of Rs. 9,85,15,020/- from A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2019-20. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 35,28,650/- remains unexplained in the A.Y. 2018-19 in case of assessee due to suppression of closing stock figure, considering the report Assessing Officer concluded that income to the extent of Rs. 35,28,650/- has escaped assessment and issued notice for reopening by rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. 10. The Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sole ground for reopening the assessment was that the Valuation Officer had determined the cost of construction at a higher rate than that shown by the assessee in its books of account. The reasons recorded did not reflect that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case to ascertain as to whether in fact the assessee had expended more amount towards construction as stated in the valuation report. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer, except for referring to the profit and loss account, which as noted hereinabove, would not reflect any profit as the assessee had not claimed any profit, and to the balance sheet part of the return of income, the Assessing Officer has made no effort to as....