Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2009 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 295 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTReassessment- (i) whether the respondents can shift their stand as notice proposing to reopen the proceeding under section 148 was on the ground of "escapement of income" however, the order of rejection was on "concealment of investment", (ii) whether the petitioners are required to file valuation report before the valuation cell, (iii) whether notice under section 148 can be issued as valuation report was received subsequent to the passing of the assessment? (iv)whether the objections which were raised by the petitioners on November 11, 2009 were considered in the order dated December 8, 2009? Held that- (1) as the first issue is concerned the answer has to be in the negative. Since the petitioners were called upon to file objection to the notice under section 148 proposing to reopen the assessment on the ground a sum of Rs. 73,219 had "escaped income", the respondents cannot shift their stand and pass an order on the ground of "concealment of investment" as the petitioners had no opportunity to file objection regarding such "concealment".(2) as the second issue is concerned, the. I find from paragraph 1 of the order dated December 8, 2009 that respondent No. 1 had held that the petitioner did not produce report before the valuation cell. In my view, the said respondent had ignored the provisions contained in section 142A of the Act which postulates that the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. Therefore, the assessee is under no obligation to file a report before the Valuation Officer. (3) So far the third issue is concerned, find that the issue is covered by the judgment in CIT v. Shirinbai Abdullabhai, notice u/s 148 could not be issued on the ground that the valuation report was received subsequent to the passing of the order. (4) that the order was silent how the objection on record was considered. While passing the order, there was no consideration of the material placed by the petitioners. Therefore all the proceedings were unsustainable and were thus set aside.
|