PRAKASH CHAND Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether respondent No. 1--Dy. CIT, Circle-5, Indore was justified in issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 of the IT Act (Annex. A-5 to A-8) to the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Facts of the case are not in dispute. Indeed, in income-tax matters, facts are mostly not in dispute and hence, the Courts are mostly concerned with the applicability of legal questions arising out of the controversy.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that assessment of years in question, referred supra, are complete and orders have also been passed, the last being made on 31st March, 2001 by AO. It appears that on 25th Jan. , 2002, the AO, who had made the aforementioned assessment, received the report of valuation officer in respect of valuation of petitioner's house in question. It is on the strength of this valuation report, the AO found that petitioner had shown less investment in the construction of the house in the assessment year in question whereas the report of the valuation officer received by him show higher investment. The AO accordingly and on the basis of this valuation report issued the impugned reassessment notices under Section 148 of IT Act whereby he sought to re-open the concluded assessments in relation to the aforementioned four assessment years. It is against these impugned notices, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They are served and represented. In substance, the respondents have defended the impugned notices by placing reliance on the reasons (A-4) supplied to the petitioner in support of the impugned notices.

(3.) HEARD Shri P. K. Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Ranwka, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Pal, learned counsel for respondents.