Case Law Details
Mukul Kumar Singh Vs. CIT (Patna High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of notice u/s 147 for re-opening of assessment on the basis of difference in valuation report is justified in law?
High Court state that the difference in valuation of the property in the two reports is also not substantial. The Assessee is a salaried person. He had constructed a residential house on a plot owner by his wife. During the course of proceedings, in fact much prior to the passing of the order accepting his return, he had submitted the Valuation Report from an approved Valuer. The same was never objected to or rejected. Right from day one, he had disclosed full particulars, what took the official valuer more than ten months to value the property and why despite the Assessee having submitted his Valuation Report dated 10th of January, 2005 request for calling Valuation Report was made only on 19th of October, 2006 and why the report reached the officer on 5th of November, 2007 are all questions which are not answerable from the record. As such, to our mind, without meeting the essential ingredient of the officer having applied his mind to the various material, necessitating reopening of assessment, is missing in the instant case. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, HC quash and set aside the impugned order.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
