TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himla dated 23.8.2011 relating to Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06 against the order passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act( in short 'the Act'). 2. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. The facts in all the captioned assessment years are identical. However, reference is being made to the facts in ITA No.1016/Chd/2011 for adjudicating the issue. 3. The preliminary issue raised by the assessee in all the captioned assessment years is vide ground No. 1 which reads as under: "1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on the basis of survey u/s133-A and not on the basis of valuation report of the DVO." 4. The brief facts of the case are that survey under section 133A of the Act on 3.12.2003 was carried out at the business premises of Shri Sukhdev Singh at Beri. The statement of Shri Sukhdev Singh Proprietor was recorded in which he stated that the premises where this concern was operating from belonged to his wife Smt. Suman Sharma to whom he way paying rent of Rs. 6000/- per month. The statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial year 2000- 01 at Rs. 10, 03, 549/-, after allowing rebate on account of self-supervision, determined the cost of construction at Rs.9,78,460/- against which the assessee had spent Rs.5,94,000/- only. The difference of Rs.3,84,460/- was added to the income of the assessee as the income from other sources. Further addition of Rs. 2,80,305/- was made under section 68 of the Act and Rs.90,000/- on account of unexplained gift. 5. In appeal before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee challenged proceedings initiated on the basis of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee raised the objection both against the notice issued under section 148 being not in the proper format and proceedings initiated being bad in law. The CIT (Appeals) observed that notice issued under section 148 of the Act was valid as the non-statutory format in which the same was issued was a technical breach and such mistakes/defects were curable under section 292B of the Act, specially 4 where it is not the case of the assessee that the reasons were not recorded for reopening of assessment. In respect of second aspect raised by the learned A.R. for the assessee, it was held by the CIT (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue was identical in all the assessment years. The learned A.R. for the assessee, however, submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Constructions Co. [328 ITR 515 (SC)] and in ITO Vs. Shree Ram Verma [(2010) 134 TTJ (Lucknow)(UO)73], the re-assessment proceedings initiated were bad in law. 7. The learned D.R. for the Revenue pointed out that no said issue was raised before the CIT (Appeals) and also submitted that the issue stands covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd.[291 ITR 500(SC)]. 8. In rejoinder the learned A.R. for the assessee referred to the written submissions filed before the CIT (Appeals) placed at pages 9 to 15 of the Paper Book in which additional ground No.7 has been raised by the assessee vis- -vis the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice under section 148 solely on the basis of the valuation officer report. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising before us is in relation to initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as determined by the Valuation Officer in the financial years 2000- 01 to 2004- 05 and in total there was a difference of Rs.17,99,500/- between the report of the Registered Valuer and that of the DVO. In view thereof, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 4,09, 549/- in assessment year 2001- 02 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and consequently notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act reflects that the basis for reopening the assessment is the report of the DVO which was on the higher side as compared to the report of the Registered Valuer in relation to the cost of construction of the property owned by the assessee. 11. Similar issue of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the basis of Valuation Report of DVO arose before the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Constructions Co. (supra) have held as under: "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 Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
