TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n put forward, It has been said that for the next assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1984-85, the valuation of real property of the writ petitioner has been made at the figure of Rs. 1.59 crores whereas the accepted valuation for the assessment year in question was of the order of Rs. 12 lakhs. This is said to be a ground (indeed it is the main ground) of reopening. The affidavit-in-opposition contains serious erroneous statements in that it is alleged that the return of wealth for the assessment year 1983-84 was filed by the assessee on March 19, 1984. It is also incorrectly stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that no appeal has been preferred by the assessee from the order containing the valuation of Rs. 1.59 crores. The wealth- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omparative largeness of such valuation in comparison to the valuation for the assessment year in question, a sufficient factor to bring the notice of reopening within the permissible limits of the above words ? It was submitted on the part of the petitioner that it is not. The first case relied upon by the petitioner is Sohan Singh Basi v. Union of India [1991] 192 ITR 431, and that is a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. The court there came to the conclusion that an assessment cannot be reopened on the ground of valuation made on the basis of the balance-sheet of a company for its shares, even if the same is different from the face value of the shares which had been disclosed by the assessee at the time of assessment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. If an assessment has already been completed on the basis of material facts, and it is not the case of the Department that such assessment could not, in any reasonable view of the matter, have been completed because of the non-disclosure of some necessary and material fact, or such assessment has been vitiated by an erroneous disclosure about. such a fact, the Department cannot reopen the matter. Thus, to justify a reopening, the Department must show at least one substantial fact, which was both material and necessary for the making of the assessment, and which, though it was the duty of the assessee to disclose the same correctly, he did not disclose, or he made an erroneous disclosure about it. Otherwise the jurisdiction to reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, no default of the present assessee-writ petitioner can be seen from the records. It is not that he has failed to give the Department prior to the completion of assessment some material and necessary fact without which the assessment could not be completed at all. In fact, the assessment was completed. Nor is it the case that the assessee has given a material and necessary fact before the completion of assessment which has now turned out to be so erroneous as to vitiate the same. Once an assessment is complete, the utmost possible finality must attach to it, and the order of reopening as against the assessee cannot be passed, save by assumption of jurisdiction within the four corners of the Act and its words as mentioned above. That ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
