A.C.I.T CIR - 1,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

ORDER

Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM:

3. We would like to adjudicate the adjournment petition of the revenue. The revenue has sought adjournment on the ground that assessment records are required for better representation. But we find from the records that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are fully reproduced in the assessee as well as in the appellate orders. In view of the same, the adjournment petition of the revenue is rejected. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had quashed the reassessment proceedings as void ab initio on the ground that the Ld. AO did not have reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and declared the reassessment as invalid. But strangely, the revenue has not raised any ground on the dismissal by Ld. CIT(A) on the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment. They had only contested the addition on merits. Hence, we find that the revenue’s appeal is to be dismissed in limine. Even on merits, we find that the issue deserves to be allowed in favour of the assessee.

2 M/s. Burnpur Cement Ltd. AY 2007-08 4. The issue to be considered in this appeal is that whether the assessment proceedings in this case could be reopened based on the valuation report given by Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) wherein, difference in valuation of properties were noticed in the sum of Rs.83,20,932/-. We find that this aspect has been fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. reported in (2010) 328 ITR 0515 (SC), wherein it was held that – “The opinion given by the District Valuation Officer is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”

We also find that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions: i) Hotel Mount View Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 280 ITR 0051(Cal), ii) Taravati Debi Agarwal (smt.) Vs. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 0606 (Cal), iii) ITO Vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 0337 (Cal), iv) Hotel Regal International Vs. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 0573 (Cal), v) Uma Devi Jhawar (smt.) Vs. ITO (1996) 218 ITR 0573 (Cal), vi) Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 314 ITR 0263 (Guj) vii) Bishnu Talkies Vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 0372 (Gau), viii) Bhagwandas Jain Vs. DCIT (2000) 246 ITR 0632 (MP), ix) Jawaharlal Daryavbuxmal Vs. CIT (1982)137 ITR 0054 (MP), x) Amala Das (smt.) Vs. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 0216 (P&H), xi) Haji Abdul Gaffar Vs. ITO (1985) 154 ITR 0001 (MP) & xii) Abdul Majid Vs. ITO (1989) 178 ITR 0616 (MP)

In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the valuation report is bad in law and hence, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 5. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2016

Sd/- Sd/- (N. V. Vasudevan) (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated : 18th May, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

APPELLANT – ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol. 1. Respondent –M/s. Burnpur Cement Ltd. “Cement House”, Saradapally, 2 Ashoknagar, Asansol-01 The CIT(A), Asansol 3. 4. CIT , Asansol 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata