ABDUL MAJID Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 519 of 1987 (Abdul Razzaq v. ITO) ; M. P. No. 520 of 1987 (Mohammad Munaf v. ITO) ; M. P. No. 521 of 1987 (Md. Iqbal v. ITO) and M. P. No. 522 of 1987 (Noor Mohammad v. ITO). As all the five petitioners in these separate petitions are aggrieved by the same order and the points of law and fact involved in the case are the same, all the petitions are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners are regularly assessed to income-tax for the last several years. THEy filed returns for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, which are annexures A, Al and A2 in each of the petitions. THE petitioners in all the five petitions are brothers. THEy purchased an old house situated at 12, Daulatganj, Indore, as co-owners and each one of them had contributed 20 per cent. of the investment amount and thereafter they reconstructed the house. THE share of each one of the petitioners was also 20 per cent. in the reconstruction. THE purchase was disclosed by the petitioners in their respective returns for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. THE reconstruction of the house started in the month of August, 1980, was completed by March, 1983. According to the petitioners, the cost of construction, including the cost of furniture and fixtures came to Rs. 7,45,000 and the contribution by each co-owner came to Rs. 1,49,000. THE year-wise detail of the cost of construction as declared by the petitioners for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 in the returns submitted before the Income-tax Officer was Rs. 24,000 for the year 1981-82, Rs. 24,000 for the year 1982-83 and Rs. 1,01,000 for the year 1983-84. Thus, each of the co-owners had shown investment of Rs. 1,49,000 in the three assessment years. Along with the returns, they also appended a valuation report of the construction, made by D.N. Nayate, approved valuer. THE petitioners were duly assessed by the Income-tax Officer, F Ward, Indore, and the returns submitted by the petitioners were accepted by the Income-tax Officer including the cost of construction as shown by the assessees. Copies of the aforesaid assessments have been filed as annexures C, C1 and C2 to the petition by each of the petitioners.

(3.) THE petitioners had, in their returns for the relevant years, placed before the Income-tax Officer all the relevant material facts necessary for assessment. THErefore, the facts already being in the knowledge of the Department, the impugned notices are not in accordance with law. On disclosure of all the material facts fully and truly, the Income-tax Officer has already accepted the assessments of the petitioners. THErefore, merely on a change of opinion on the basis of the valuation made by the Departmental Valuer, the assessment of the petitioners could not be reopened. THErefore, a prayer has been made to issue a writ, direction or order for quashing the said impugned notices dated March 30, 1987 (annexure "F"), and also issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings under the said notices (annexure "F") or for making any reassessment or computation in pursuance thereof in respect of the petitioners.