9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 137 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - cost estimated by the DVO - difference in the cost of construction declared by the assessee and estimated by the DVO - Held that - It is an admitted fact that during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2010-11, the immovable property of the assessee was referred for valuation to DVO who has given his report which is reproduced in the assessment orders and the difference in cost was taken into consideration as reported by the assessee and the cost estimated by the DVO, there were no other material available with the AO to reopen the assessment in the matter. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. 2010 (2) TMI 612 - Supreme Court of India held The opinion given by the District Valuation Officer is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. . Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the above judgment and as such there is no justification for the AO to reopen the assessments in the matter. Reasons recorded under section 148 of the Income Tax Act reflect the arbitrary use of powers conferred under section 147 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the additions made based on the District Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of the Assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in all the appeals was the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had reopened the assessments for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 based on the difference in the cost of construction declared by the assessee and the cost estimated by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The AO believed that the assessee had not fully declared the cost of investment, leading to the reopening of the assessments. The assessee challenged the reopening, referring to the reasons recorded for the reopening which were similar across all the assessment years. The reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment were based solely on the DVO’s report, which indicated a higher cost of construction than what was declared by the assessee. The assessee's counsel argued that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Ms. Rajinder Kaur Vs. ACIT, where it was held that the validity of reassessment proceedings must be determined with reference to the reasons recorded. It was emphasized that there must be tangible material available to justify the reopening of the assessment. In the cited case, it was found that the AO had reopened the assessment based on assumptions and without conducting any inquiries to verify the information. The court held that there was no tangible material available on record to justify the reopening, making the notice under section 148 arbitrary and an abuse of power. Similarly, in the present case, the ITAT found that the AO had relied solely on the DVO’s report without any further inquiry or material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. held that the opinion given by the DVO is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under section 147. This principle was reiterated by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Akshar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer. Based on these precedents, the ITAT concluded that the reopening of the assessments was not justified as it reflected an arbitrary use of power under section 147. The orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the reopening of the assessments was quashed. 2. Validity of the Additions Made Based on the DVO’s Report: Since the reopening of the assessments was quashed, there was no need to delve into the merits of the additions made based on the DVO’s report. The ITAT noted that the additions were left for academic discussion only, and as a result, all additions were deleted. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed all the appeals of the assessee, quashing the reopening of the assessments under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and deleting all the additions made. The judgment emphasized the necessity of tangible material for reopening assessments and the improper reliance on the DVO’s report without further inquiry.
|
