9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the report of the official valuer constitutes "information" u/s 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether the reopening of the assessment based on the official valuer's report is justified. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the report of the official valuer constitutes "information" u/s 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm running a cinema theatre, challenged the reopening of its assessments for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 based on a report by the official Valuation Officer, which estimated the cost of construction higher than the petitioner's valuation. The petitioner argued that the report does not constitute "information" as it varies from person to person and valuer to valuer. The court examined the term "information" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), which include facts or factual material and knowledge derived from an external source. The court concluded that the subsequent report of the valuation officer constitutes "information" as to a fact within the meaning of s. 147(b) of the Act. Issue 2: Whether the reopening of the assessment based on the official valuer's report is justified. The court referred to the principles laid down in Tulsidas Kilachand v. D.R. Chawla [1980] 122 ITR 458 (Bom), where it was held that mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. However, the court distinguished the present case, stating that the reopening was based on new information provided by the official valuer's report, which was not available during the original assessment. The court also noted that the dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court without reasons does not lay down a binding principle. Therefore, the court held that the reopening of the assessment based on the official valuer's report was justified and did not suffer from an error of jurisdiction or manifest error of law. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned notices issued by the ITO were valid. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file its returns and objections before the ITO. The court emphasized that the petitioner could challenge the valuation during the reassessment proceedings and pursue remedies under the Act if the ITO's decision was unfavorable.
|
