9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one land at a price of Rs. 78 lakhs. However, stamp authorities valued the same at Rs. 1,85,05,800/- and charged the stamp duty accordingly. In the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 1,07,05,800/- (Rs.1,85,05,800/- - Rs. 78,00,000/-) as deemed income, being unexplained under Section 69 of the Act. It appears that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act the assessee preferred Appeal before the learned CIT(A). At this stage, it is required to be noted that during pendency of the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made Reference to the District Valuation Officer ('DVO" for short). However, as according to the revenue, time limit to frame the scrutiny assessment was to over, the Assessing Officer without waiting for the DVO's report finalised the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and added Rs. 1,07,05,800/- as deemed income, being unexplained investment, under Section 69 of the Act. As observed hereinabove, against the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act the asssesse preferred Appeal before the learned CIT(A). In the meant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,07,05,800/- to the total income of the assessee company under Section 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has referred the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer. However, the valuation report was not received by the Assessing Officer till the time of completion of the assessment. 3. The requisite valuation report has been received recently from the DVO, Ahmedabad vide letter No.2(44)/DVO/2007-08, dated 29/09/2009, wherein the value of the said land is assessed at Rs. 4,43,83,000/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer adopted the value of the land at Rs. 1,85,05,800/- as against the value of Rs. 4,43,83,000/- assessed by the Valuation Officer. As such, the value of the land in question is assessed less by Rs. 2,58,77,200/-. 4. In view of the above facts, the undersigned has a reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 2,58,77,200/- has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee company. As such, an income of Rs. 2,58,77,200/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and the undersigned is satisfied that this case is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act." [2.2] The assessee raised th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to enhance the unexplained /unaccounted income, however, the learned CIT(A) specifically rejected the said request by observing and relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Balkishan Poddar (Supra). It is submitted that the decision in the case of Balkishan Poddar (Supra) has been subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that therefore having failed before the learned CIT(A) to get any enhancement relying upon the DVO's report, thereafter it is not be open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the very ground relying upon the DVO's report. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned reopening. [4.0] The present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having received the information in the form of DVO's report, which was not available at the time when the scrutiny assessment was framed, the Assessing officer is justified in reopening the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,07,05,800/- as deemed income, being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, considering the valuation determined by the stamp authorities and thereafter the Assessing Officer framed the assessment. [5.2] Now so far as the submission on behalf of the revenue that at the time when the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer was not having the DVO's report though reference was already made during the assessment proceedings, which came to be received subsequently, and therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the information in the form of DVO's report is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such against the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred Appeal before the learned CIT(A) and in the meantime the Assessing Officer received the DVO's report. It is required to be noted that before the learned CIT(A), relying upon the DVO's report, the Assessing Officer did make the request to make enhancement, however, considering its earlier decision in the case of Balkishan Poddar (Supra), which is subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case, having found that during pendency of the assessment proceedings Reference was already made to the DVO, however the DVO's report was not received and as the time limit to frame the assessment was likely to be over, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and directed for recomputation of the capital gain and on receipt of the DVO's report, it was found that reference to the DVO was made during the assessment proceedings, the same can be relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Thus, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. [5.5] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunder Carpet Industries (Supra) is concerned, on considering the same, we are of the opinion that the said decision also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Before the Allahabad High Court firstly it was not the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and secondly in the present case as observed hereinabove, on the basis of the DVO's report before the CIT(A) the Assessing Officer did attempted to enhance the deemed income /unexpected investment relying upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
