TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment framed is void ab initio, the same be cancelled." 3. After hearing the learned representatives of both the parties, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 8-3-2002 in the case of Darshan Singh v. Assessing Officer [IT Appeal No. 212 (Asr.) of 1999] relating to the assessment year 1995-96. While deciding the similar issue, the Tribunal vide paragraphs 5 and 5.1 of the order held as under: "5. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties at length and have also perused the orders of the authorities below. Before us, Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Individual. Reasons for issuing of notice under section 148 As per the information received from the Budhlada, the assessee has constructed a house at Budhlada and this case was referred to the Valuation Cell. The Valuation Officer, Ludhiana vide his valuation report has estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 10,73,600 whereas the cost of construction shown/explained before the valuation officer is at Rs.6,00,000. Hence, there is a difference of Rs. 4,73,600 between the valuation shown by the assessee as determined by the Valuation Cell. I have, therefore, reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 4,73,600 has escaped assessment, therefore, notice under section 148 is issued in this case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of the case of Smt. Usha Mathur ( supra ) and the Hon ble High Court in the said case held that when the assessment was made under section 143(1), reopening on the basis of valuation cells report no addition can be made which amounts to review of its earlier order. In our view, in the instant case also, on the basis of the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Usha Mathur ( supra ), it can be held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in re-opening the assessment on the basis of report of the D.V.O. At this stage, it would also be relevant to point out that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Paramjit Kaur, Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. However, the assessee has shown the cost of construction for the said period at Rs. 1,54,256. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer after recorded reasons on 30-3-1999 that the income of Rs. 19,990 representing the difference between the cost of construction determined by the DVO and the one shown by the assessee, has escaped assessment in terms of section 147 of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration was issued on 30-3-1999. From the above facts, it would be clear that in the instant case also, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of the report of the DVO and there was no other material with the Assessing Officer for initiating the reassessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
