TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed investment he could not reopen the said assessment for enhancement of said addition merely on the basis of the report of the DVO. In this regard, we are enlightened by the ratio laid down in AKSHAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD [ 2017 (3) TMI 393 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . Also in MUNIR ISMAIL VORAJI [ 2017 (5) TMI 684 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where on the basis of DVO s report reopening notice was issued and challenged before the Court. It was further found that no further enquiry was conducted to find out fair market value, neither was there any tangible material available to the AO to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Ultimately such reopening of assessment merely on the basis of the DVO s report was held to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also argued by him. His further argument is this that the reopening on the basis of the DVO s report is not justified on this aspect he has cited several judgments copy whereof were also annexed to the Paper Book filed before us. The above two grounds were the additional grounds taken before us. He has made his further argument on admission of additional grounds at this stage and relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 64 CCH 1401; 157 CTR 249; 229 ITR 383. Respectfully relying upon the ration laid down in the said judgment of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) we admit those two additional grounds mentioned above. Apart from that the DVO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(3) on 15/3/2013 by accepting the return of income as assessed income of ₹ 4,29,270/-. 2. On verification of the Valuation Report, it is found that the District Valuation Officer has estimated the cost of investment in property for A.Y.2010-11 at declared cost of investment by the assessee at ₹ 3,02,97,041/-. Thus, the assessee has underestimated the cost of investment at ₹ 28,65,935/- for A.Y. 2010-11. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that in this case, the assessee has underestimated the cost of investment at ₹ 28,65,935/- for A.Y. 2010-11, Hence, an amount of ₹ 28,65,935/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. On this aspect he has relied upon the respective judgment: Gujarat High Court Aavkar Infrastructure Company V.DCIT 67 Taxmann.com 39 ; 218 Taxmann 644 ; 290 CTR 413. Akshar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. V. ITO 79 Taxmann.com 239 ; 246 Taxman 353 ; 393 ITR 658; 299 CTR 501. Kisan Proteins (P) Ltd. V. ACIT 74 Taxmann.com ; 243 Taxman 1 1 : 292 ctr 345. Munir Ismail Voraji V. ITO 82 Taxmann.com 92 ; 404 ITR 696. Vinayak Builders V. BD Garsar (OR) Successor 27 Taxmann.com 116 ; 346 ITR 39. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goodluck Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 82 CCH 0331; 78 DTR 0104; 254 CTR 0001; 359 ITR 0306 Punjab Haryana High Court CIT vs. Chohan Resorts 33 taxmann.com 644; 359 ITR 394; 253 CTR 106 Agra ITAT Prahalad Kumar Jindal vs. ACIT ITA No. 137/Agr/2012 11. As regards the aspect of reopening of assessment on DVO s report is concerned we conclude that where the AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) making certain addition in respect of unexplained investment he could not reopen the said assessment for enhancement of said addition merely on the basis of the report of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
