DVO Report based on mere estimate not sufficient information for the purpose of reopening assessment u/s 147. ITAT deleted addition u/s 69
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2675 (2018) (12) ITAT
Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:
ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC)
ITO vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 337
Akshar Infrastructure P. Ltd., vs. ITO (2017) 393 ITR 658
CIT vs. P. Nithilan (2018) 403 ITR 154
CIT vs. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka (2008) 303 ITR 351
This appeal by the assessee was directed against the Order of the CIT(A).
During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that assessee had constructed a building. The assessee has declared investment in a sum of approx Rs. 17 lakhs in assessment year under appeal.
To ascertain the actual cost of the construction, this case was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
As per Valuation Report of DVO, the cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore in view of the difference between value as per valuation officer report and the value as declared by the assessee, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for initiating proceedings U/s 147 of the Income-tax, Act, 1961.
The assessee in compliance to the notice U/s 148 of the I.T. Act, submitted that return originally filed may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The AO treated the said difference as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and made the addition in re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147/148 of the Act.
The CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and addition on merit.
It was submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it was held that opinion of the DVO per se is not sufficient information for the purposes of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.
The assessee also relied upon number of judgments of various High Courts.
The Tribunal opined that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the AO merely on the basis of the report of Valuation Officer recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment.
The Valuation Report was based on mere estimate and as such the same per se was not sufficient information for the purpose of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.
The Tribunal also noted that the issue is covered by the various Judgments relied upon by the assessee. Following the same, the ITAT set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment.
Download Full Judgment Click Here>>
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…