TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee and as per DVO report – CIT(A) has given a clear finding that there was no reason available with the AO except the report of a valuer which showed the valuation of the building higher than the investment disclosed by the assessee - the only basis regarding the AO’s belief that some income has escaped assessment, is DVO’s report only – relying upon Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Dhariya Construction Co. [2010 (2) TMI 612 - Supreme Court of India] wherein it was held that the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act - in all the AYs the reopening was done by the AO on the basis of same DVO’s report - once reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention that the reopening was done on the basis of the valuation report received from the DVO. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention that the validity of reopening was challenged in assessment year 2002-03 through I.T.A. No. 713/LKW/2013 on the ground that the reopening was done solely on the basis of the DVO s report and the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in order to form a belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This issue w examined by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.11.2014 and the Tribunal has categorically held that since reopening was done on the basis of the DVO s report, the reopening is not valid and the Tribunal accordingly quashed the assessment framed under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s report is bad and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A) in the assessee s appeals and on the Assessing Officer in the Revenue s appeals. He did not dispute the factual aspect demonstrated by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of record, we find that in all the impugned assessment years, the assessments were reopened on the basis of the DVO s report and the assessments were completed under section 147 read with 144 of the Act and in some cases under section 143 of the Act. The issue of reopening of assessment on the basis of DVO s report was examined by the Lucknow Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt., Allahabad to work out the year wise cost of investment in the property. The V.O. submitted his report dated 31.10.2005 estimating the total cost of construction in the building at ₹ 36,60,000/- as against ₹ 19,11,290/- shown by the assessee before him. Thus, according to his report there was a total difference of ₹ 17,48,710/- in the cost of investment. The V.O. however, reported the admitted investment of ₹ 1,66,000/- in FY 1999-2000 whereas it was actually ₹ 1,50,000/- in case of Dr. Mahesh Surtani. Further, Mrs. Manju Surtani had also claimed to have made investment in the property in AY 2000-01, AY 2001-02 and in AY 2004-05 ₹ 75,000/-, ₹ 1,25,000/- and ₹ 2,50,000/- respectively. Where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment for AY 2002-03. 4.1 From the above reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is apparent that his belief that some income has escaped assessment is only on the basis of D.V.O. report because he has worked out the difference in the amount of investment as per the investment declared by the assessee and as per D.V.O. report. For the present year, this difference has been noted by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 2,73,725/-. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee as per para 5.4 of his order, which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: 5.4 In the instant case, the reasons recorded by the AO show that there were no reasons available with the AO except the report of a valuer wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Considering all these facts and legal position, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 8. In all the assessment years the reopening was done by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same DVO s report. Therefore, the impugned issue of validity of reopening of assessment on the basis of the DVO s report is covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 9. Besides, the ld. counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to a very vital point that reference itself was invalid on the ground that it was made by the Assessing Officer without rejecting the books of account of the assessee. In support of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
