TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the construction of the kalyana mandapam as disclosed by the assessee, the valuation report could not be made the basis for reopening the assessment and therefore, the only ground available for the Department for reopening the assessment was the report of the official valuer for issuing notice u/s 148 which is bad and without foundation and therefore, liable to be quashed. A Division Bench, in CIT v. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat [ 2000 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where during the search, it was found that the assessee had constructed a bungalow and had incurred an expense of Rs. 4.16 lakhs for the same and the Assessing Officer, thereafter, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuer, who valued the property at Rs. 6.66 lakhs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee constructed a kalyana mandapam known as TRG Kalyana Mandapam . The cost of the construction falls within the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The total investment declared by the assessee for the above assessment years was Rs. 90,17,190/-. The Assessing Officer, of course, before completing the scrutiny assessment for the said assessment years, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. But, however, before receiving the valuation report, he completed the assessment. Thereafter, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,23,46,000/-. After allowing certain deductions fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2002. 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeals, by order dated March 12, 2004, aggrieved by which, the assessee again preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by a common order dated October 28, 2005, allowed the appeals and hence, the present appeals by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act on the basis of the valuation report is not proper? 2. Whether on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs and the difference between the said valuation was added as an undisclosed income, it was held that no addition could be made on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer, which was obtained subsequent to the order of the regular assessment. 8. In CIT v. Darshan Singh [2005] 272 ITR 650, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reopening of assessment on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer determining the cost of construction at a figure higher than what was disclosed by the assessee is not justified. 9. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do not find any force in the contention of the Revenue for raising the first question of law. 10. In view of our above conclusion with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
