MUHAMMED ASHRAF O.K vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 33554 of 2016 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- MUHAMMED ASHRAF O.K, ORUPURAM KANDATH HOUSE, KODUVALLY, CALICUT - 673 572.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, (CG) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

WP(C).No. 33554 of 2016 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT. 3/12/2015 ISSUED SECOND RESPONDENT

EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF DOC. NO.2075/2011 DT. 3/6/2011.

EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT. 23/6/2016 ISSUED BY

FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF VALUATION REPORT DT. 23/6/2016 BY SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF VALUATION REPORT DT. 24/8/2016 BY ER.P.S.GOPAKUMAR.

EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DT. 1/9/2016 TO EXT.P3.

EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT. 23/9/2016 FROM FIRST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33554 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 by which the 1st respondent had called upon the petitioner to file objections to the reply on the proposed assessment of unexplained investment. 2. The matter was posted on 06.10.2016. It is submitted that the matter is adjourned to another date. In Ext.P7, the 1st respondent relies upon valuation report Ext.P4 prepared by a valuer engaged for the aforesaid purpose. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 as well. It is inter alia contended that though the valuation officer was required to estimate the investment in construction of the building, he had proceeded further and had even gone to the extent of computing the value of the property which the petitioner's wife had given on the basis of a gift deed. It is submitted that the entire manner in which the valuation report had been prepared is totally unjustifiable which is evident from the report itself. However, the assessing authority without even caring to look into any of the irrelevant aspects involved in the valuation report had called upon the petitioner to file objection to the proposed assessment. The petitioner apprehends that the assessing officer may not consider any of the objections relating to the valuation as he is bound to take into account the said valuation report.

W.P.(C).No.33554 of 2016 2 4. First of all, the questions whether the valuation report prepared by the valuer is proper or not are not matters which this Court is concerned at this stage of proceedings. The valuation has been obtained by the 1st respondent taking note of the fact that the building requires a valuation by an approved valuer. If the petitioner has objection to the valuation report and if the petitioner is of the view that the valuer had proceeded on irrelevant considerations and had relied upon irrelevant materials and had even exceeded the task given to him, it shall always be open for the petitioner to point out the same before the 1st respondent, while an assessment is being made as per the statutory format. 5. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to file appropriate objection before the assessing officer, namely the 1st respondent, ventilating the grievances even in respect of the infirmities that could be pointed out in regard to the valuation report and it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that any objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the valuation report shall be considered, while passing final orders pursuant to Ext.P7. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. AV