TARA CHAND MUNDHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has been assessed after he filed bis income-tax return for the year ending on June 30, 1984, for the assessment year 1985-86. THE assessment order has been filed by the petitioner as annexure 3 which is dated August 7, 1987. THE petitioner filed his balance-sheet with the return before the assessing authority. THE same is produced as annexure 1. In this balance-sheet, the petitioner has shown the value of the house property at Jaswantgarh at Rs. 2,75,000.

(2.) PRIOR to the completion of the assessment for the year 1985-86 and passing of the assessment order annexure 3, respondent No. 3 had made a reference to the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax Office, vide his letter dated April 20, 1987, to assess the value of the house. A letter of reference has been produced as annexure 4. Before this valuation report could come to respondent No. 3, as desired by him vide letter annexure 4, he proceeded with the assessment and on August 7, 1987, he completed the assessment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the valuation report submitted by the official Valuation Officer is nothing more than a piece of opinion expressed by the Valuation Officer and opinion evidence cannot constitute an information so as to give respondent No. 3 an apprehension to comprehend that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Before any information can be said to be sufficient to enable the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment order it should be of the nature so as to acquaint, enlighten or instruct the mind of the assessing authority for the first time concerning the matter relating to taxable income. As regards the valuation report of the Valuation Officer which has been made the basis of the notice for reopening the assessment it can be said that the assessing authority himself had made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer on April 20, 1987, to send his report. Not only was the assessing authority aware of the fact that such report has been called for by him but he was aware that the assessment was likely to get time barred by March 31, 1988. He could have asked the Departmental Valuation Officer to have expedited the submission of the valuation report. Still the assessing authority had completed the assessment on August 7, 1987, though the assessment could be made up to March 31, 1988. The departmental authorities felt satisfied that the information sought by them from the official Valuation Officer is of no consequence and, therefore, the assessing authority had passed the assessment order as otherwise the assessment order could have been further delayed. Thus, the valuation report was not such a piece of document which can be said to have the nature so as to acquaint, enlighten or instruct the mind of the assessing authority for the first time regarding the dispute in relation to the valuation of the property.