2024 (5) TMI 107 - HC - Income Tax

Reference to Departmental valuation officer DVO without first rejecting the books of accounts - HELD THAT - Provision of law empowers the assessing officer to make a reference, however, the stage for making the reference being after rejection of books of account, the decision in Sargam Cinema 2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER holds the field. Since the essential facts with respect to making of reference have not been dealt by the Tribunal, we would not like to allow that discussion to arise before us. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the observations made above. Thus the Tribunal may first determine if the books of account of the assessee had been rejected before reference was made to the DVO. Only in the event the books are found to have been rejected before the reference order was made, the further issue of a edition may survive for consideration.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the legality of making a reference to the valuation officer for determining input cost, the permissibility of relying on the valuer's report, the authority of the CIT (A) to send the matter back to the assessing officer, and the justification of the ITAT in rejecting the cross-objection of the appellant.

Legal Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Reference to Valuation Officer
The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, questioning the permissibility of making a reference to the valuation officer without rejecting the books of accounts. The Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema case was cited, emphasizing that the assessing authority cannot refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer without rejecting the books of account. The Tribunal's decision to rely on the DVO's report without rejecting the books was deemed legally unjustified.

Issue 2: Rejection of Cross-Objection
The Tribunal rejected the grounds pressed in the Cross-Objection based on Section 142A of the Act, which empowers the assessing officer to make a reference after rejecting the books of account. However, the Tribunal's decision was found erroneous as it did not consider whether the books of account were rejected before making the reference to the DVO. The judgment set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of first determining if the books of account were rejected before making a reference to the DVO.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the critical importance of rejecting the books of account before making a reference to the valuation officer and emphasized the need for proper consideration of legal provisions before relying on the DVO's report. The Tribunal was directed to reevaluate the matter in light of the observations made in the judgment to ensure a fair and legally justified decision.