9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ( 2010 (2) TMI 612 - Supreme Court of India). It is well settled that the valuation is matter of estimate only and two valuers would not arrive at the same figure of value of the property, and therefore, any estimate made by a valuer could not be said to be “information” to justify the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2532 to 2534/Ahd/2009 ITA No. 2253/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-10-2014 - S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, JJ For The Appellant :-Shri M.G. Patel For The Respondent :-Shri Roopchand, Sr.DR ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: These appeals by the assessee for the Asstt.Years 2002-2003, 2003-04 and 2004-05 and by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has purchased the same. He submitted that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO vide Their order dated 24.2.2009 has quashed and set aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Act . He submitted that the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in MEPL has become final as the SLP of the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that valuation report of the DVO in the case MEPL is a borrowed report as far as the assessee is concerned, and it does not pertain to the assessee, and the assessee was never confronted with the proposed valuation. He submitted that in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information to justify the reopening of the assessment. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the series of decisions of the Hon ble Courts including that of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited supra. It is well settled that the valuation is matter of estimate only and two valuers would not arrive at the same figure of value of the property, and therefore, any estimate made by a valuer could not be said to be information to justify the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Moreover, in this case, the reopening has been sought on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO in some other case, viz. M/s.Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd.(MEPL) In the case of MEPL , the reopening under section 147 has been quashed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: 1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 15,35,245/- on account of the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and failed to explain the difference between the cost of construction determined by the DVO and the expenditure shown by it in its books of accounts. 7. We have heard the parties. We find that since the reopening itself for the relevant Asstt.Year 2003-04 has been held as not valid, vide our order in the foregoing paras of this order, while disposing of the quantum appeal of the assessee for the Asst.Year 2003-04, we hold that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be validly levied on the assessee, and accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
