CLASSIC BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims the following reliefs :

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in this writ and the issue urged, a few facts which lie in a narrow compass that led to filing of the petition need mention.

(3.) A survey under Section 133 of the Act was conducted by the Income Tax authorities in the business premises of the assessee. In these proceedings, when asked, the petitioner furnished an information that the value of one of their properties now under dispute in this petition by name -Classic Gold, 23/24, New Palasia, Indore, is valued at Rs. 62,75,000. In order to elucidate the correctness of the cost of construction of this property, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) -I, Indore, by his letter dated May 31, 1999 (annexure P -1), asked the District Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department to inspect the aforementioned property and to make such investigation, seek clarification and material from an assessee and then determine the true and correct cost of construction of the aforesaid property. It was also said that the letter may be treated as issue of commission as provided under Section 131(1)(d) read with Section 131(1A) of the Act. In substance, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) invoked his powers conferred on him under Section 131(1A) of the Act and issued a commission as provided under Section 131(1)(d) ibid. A copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner as also to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the District Valuation Officer (DVO) made an inquiry as is necessary for determining the cost of construction of the aforementioned property, i. e., Classic Gold, 23/24, New Palasia, Indore, and by his report dated November 12, 1999 (annexure P -2), determined the cost of the said property at Rs. 1,38,75,000. On receipt of the said report from the District Valuation Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) (2)(1) (Invc.), by his letter dated November 18, 1999 (annexure P -2), sent the same to petitioner and requested for furnishing the objections if any to the valuation so made by the District Valuation Officer. The petitioner was asked to submit the objections by December 15, 1999, else, it was said that the petitioners have nothing to say about the determination so made by the Valuation Officer. It is in reply to this letter, the petitioner, vide annexures P -4 and P -5 filed its objections. The objections annexure P -5 was in the nature of technical one prepared by another registered valuer - -Mr. N. S. Raheja - -objecting to the valuation made by the District Valuation Officer. It is at this stage, i. e., after filing these objections, contending that the valuation of the District Valuation Officer be not accepted, the petitioner has filed this writ and claimed the aforementioned relief.