Case Law Details
Sathyamurthy Giridaran Vs Assessment Unit (Madras High Court)
In the case of Sathyamurthy Giridaran vs. Assessment Unit, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 18.03.2024. The petitioner contested a variation confirmed in the assessment concerning the disparity between the sale consideration for an immovable property and the guideline value, as specified in the relevant conveyance deed.
The impugned assessment order was issued after reopening the assessment for the petitioner’s assessment year 2015-2016.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the assessment order and highlighted that it mentioned awaiting the valuation from the District Valuation Officer (DVO) and stated that the assessment order was subject to rectification upon receipt of the DVO’s valuation report. The petitioner’s counsel provided the court with the order dated 12.04.2024 issued by the Assistant Valuation Officer-II, Income Tax Department, along with the rectification application dated 16.04.2024.
The learned junior standing counsel representing the respondents accepted notice and agreed that, since the valuation report was available, the matter should be remanded for consideration of the valuation report and the rectification application.
Considering the availability of the valuation report dated 12.04.2024, the court directed the assessing officer to reconsider the matter in light of this report and the rectification application. The assessing officer was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass an order on the rectification application within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the court’s order.
Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 18.03.2024 is assailed on the ground that a variation was confirmed in respect of the disparity between the sale consideration for an immovable property, as specified in the relevant conveyance deed, and the guideline value.
2. By reopening the assessment of the petitioner in respect of assessment year 2015-2016, the impugned assessment order was issued on 18.03.2024.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the assessment order and pointed out that it is recorded therein under paragraph 4.5(c) that the valuation from the DVO is awaited and that the assessment order is subject to rectification upon receipt of the valuation report of the DVO. By placing on record the order dated 12.04.2024 of the Assistant Valuation Officer-II, Income Tax Department, learned senior counsel submits that the assessment order is liable to be rectified by taking into consideration such valuation report. He has also placed on record the application for rectification dated 16.04.2024.
4. Mrs. S. Premalatha, learned junior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. In view of the valuation order being available as on date, she submits that the matter may be remanded for consideration of the valuation report and the rectification application.
5. Since the valuation report dated 12.04.2024 is available, it is necessary for the assessing officer to take such report into consideration and rectify the assessment order on such basis.
6. For reasons set out above, the matter is remanded to the assessing officer. The assessing officer is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the valuation report dated 12.04.2024 and the rectification application dated 16.04.2024. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, an order shall be passed on the rectification application within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
