Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (3) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing information for reopening of assessment. Making the reassessment and reopening of assessment are two different things. When the process of reopening of assessment ends and the assessment is validly reopened thereafter, the process of making reassessment starts. Therefore, even after the insertion of s. 142A, the AO should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as provided u/s 147 and thereafter only the notice for reassessment can be issued u/s 148. Even after the insertion of s. 142A, there is no amendment in the language of s. 147. Therefore, the condition prescribed u/s 147 for reopening of assessment still exists. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Bhola Nath Majumdar and the T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y which constructed the houses for its members. The AO referred the matter to the DVO on 30th March, 1999 for determination of cost of construction of the complex constructed by the assessee. The report of the DVO was received on 5th July, 2000 by the AO. Thereafter, on 20th April, 2001, the AO issued notices under s. 148 for all the three years under appeal. In all the three years, the AO made the additions for difference between the cost of construction disclosed in the books of account and the cost of construction estimated by the DVO. The CIT(A) partly reduced the additions. Both the parties are in appeal; the Revenue against the relief allowed by the CIT(A) while the assessee against the additions sustained. Apart from above, the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or making the additions under consideration. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Dr. Arjun D. Bharad has held— "The pendency of proceeding is sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to the concerned authority to make a reference to the DVO and the AO can exercise the powers conferred on him under s. 131(1)(d) only if an independent proceeding is pending with him." Admittedly, in this case when the AO made the reference to the DVO, no proceedings were pending before him and, therefore, he was not competent to refer the matter to the DVO. In the case of Bhola Nath Majumdar the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held as und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dings under s. 147 and only thereupon, could he become entitled to invoke s. 131(1). Therefore, the impugned summons was liable to be quashed." 6. The learned Departmental Representative, has vehemently contended that the above decisions are no more good law in view of the insertion of s. 142A. Sec. 142A reads as under : 142A(1). For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in s. 69 or s. 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in s. 69A or s. 69B is required to be made; the AO may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a refer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as provided under s. 147 and thereafter only the notice for reassessment can be issued under s. 148. Even after the insertion of s. 142A, there is no amendment in the language of s. 147. Therefore, the condition prescribed under s. 147 for reopening of assessment still exists. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Bhola Nath Majumdar and the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in the case of Vijay Kumar have taken the view that the valuation report is only an opinion of the valuer and an opinion of a third party cannot be a reason to believe of the ITO. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jamnadas Madhavji Co. has held that the AO cannot issue summons under s. 131 for the purpose of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates