TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 and 31.03.2006, the Assessing Officer clearly had the investment made by the partnership firm in mind. It is surprising that despite clear terms of the reference to the DVO calling for his estimate of cost of construction during the period of 20.09.2005 to 31.03.2006, the DVO appears to have given his estimate of cost of construction during the period between 01.04.2004 and 01.07.2005 and estimated such cost at ₹ 1.82 crores. If the reference of the DVO was for a specific period, he could not have given the report for the period completely unrelated to the reference period. On what basis the DVO was prompted to give such report for a period anterior to one for which his opinion was called for, we are not sure. In our opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort] on 17.08.2007 for his opinion on the cost of construction. We would refer to this reference in detail at a later stage. The DVO submitted his report dated 02.12.2011 and estimated the cost of construction of the building during the period from 01.04.2004 to 01.07.2005 at ₹ 1.82 crores. 4. The Assessing Officer on the basis of such report, desired to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2005-06 for which, impugned notice was issued. In order to do so, the Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons: A reference was made to the valuation officer on 17.08.2007 to determine the value of property known as Hotel Celebration. The District Valuation Officer income tax Department Ahmedabad under No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the end of the relevant assessment year. There was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Notice for reopening therefore, could not have been issued. ii. During the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had scrutinized this issue and not disturbed the investment showed by the assessee in the books of accounts. iii. The reference by the DVO was made without rejecting assessee's books of accounts. Such reference was, therefore, not valid. iv. The DVO's report cannot form the basis for issuing notice for reopening. Counsel contended that the report of the DVO is merely in the form of opinion and would not form the reason for the Assessing Officer to believe that the income c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm in mind. 9. Be that as it may, it is surprising that despite clear terms of the reference to the DVO calling for his estimate of cost of construction during the period of 20.09.2005 to 31.03.2006, the DVO appears to have given his estimate of cost of construction during the period between 01.04.2004 and 01.07.2005 and estimated such cost at ₹ 1.82 crores. If the reference of the DVO was for a specific period, he could not have given the report for the period completely unrelated to the reference period. On what basis the DVO was prompted to give such report for a period anterior to one for which his opinion was called for, we are not sure. In our opinion, therefore, a report of the DVO itself was invalid since it travelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
