M/s Jamyang Choling Institute, Dharamashala V. ITO, Dharamashala

ITA 704/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5124 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tangible material; Valuation report; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 704 TO 706/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09 M/S JAMYONG CHOLING INSTITUTE VS. THE ITO MCLEODGANJ DHARAMASHALA DHARAMASHALA PAN NO. AAATJ3512G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 31/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/06/2017 ORDER ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), PALAMPUR DT. 21/02/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008- 09. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON THE MERI TS. 3. THE AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATION TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WHO AS PER ITS REPORT, THE YEAR WISE BREAK UP OF COST D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS-- VIS COST ASSESSED BY THE DVO WAS REPORTED AND SAME IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 -07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE DVO ARE RS. 5,38,049/-, RS. 6,64,534/- AND R S. 1,62,182/-. THE AO THEREFORE FORMED HIS BELIEF THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY DECLA RED THE COST OF INVESTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING 2 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE CHALLENGING T HE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN ALL THE YEARS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS SIMILARLY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. COPY OF REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARE FILED AT PA PER BOOK PAGE NO. 4 WHICH READS AS UNDER: ANNEXURE A (REASON FOR THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED) NAME OF THE ASSESSEE : M/S JAMYANG CHOLING INSTIT UTE TARA GUEST HOUSE, MCLEODGANJ DHARAMSHALA, DISTT- KANGRA(H.P.) PAN : AAATJ3512G ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY DECLARING INCOME AT RS. NIL. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AT INCOME OF RS. NIL. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS DEC LARED COST OF THE BUILDING AT RS. 14,98,301/-, WHEREAS IT IS DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AT RS.20,36,350/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, STATED FACTS ASSESSEE HAS SUP PRESSED HIS COST OF BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT RS.20,36,350 - RS.14,98,301 = RS.5,38,049/-. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE THE TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,38,049/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR A Y 2006-07. THEREFORE, APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 1 51{2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS SOUGHT TO INITIATE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 IN THIS CASE. SD/- (VIPAN MAHAJAN) INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA 4.1 HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF MS. RAJINDER KAUR VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 765/CHANDI/2015 DATED 21/12/2016 IN WHICH I N PARA 10 TO 13 HELD AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS W ELL SETTLED LAW THAT VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO B E DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE REASONS RECORDED. THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE REPROD UCED ABOVE. IT WOULD SHOW THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME INCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF REP ORT OF REGISTERED VALUER. COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED IN THE REASONS T HAT ON INQUIRIES, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CHANDIGARH ADMINI STRATION ALLOTTED COMMERCIAL PLOTS @ 5463/- PER SQ.YD. AS ON JANUARY,1985. THE LD. DR WAS ASKED TO SPECIFY AS T O WHAT IS THE BASIS OF INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, 3 WHETHER INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN WRITING OR ORAL FROM THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION FOR GETTING THIS INFO RMATION. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT WHETHER ANY INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO RECORDING OF REASONS IN WRITING OR ORALLY. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPORT OF R EGISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS A LONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS ATTACHED NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CUTTINGS ATTACHED WITH THE REGISTERED VALUER REPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE RATES @ 5463/- PER SQ.YD. THIS SUBMISSION SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER TO THE RAT ES OF COMMERCIAL PLOTS @ 5463/- PER SQ.YD. AS ON JANUARY, 1985 BECAUSE THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THESE RATE S FROM CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION. WHEN REPORT OF REGISTERE D VALUER IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER BUT THE NEWSPAP ER CUTTING ATTACHED WITH THE REGISTERED VALUER AS PER SUBMISSI ON OF LD. DR HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPO SE OF MAKING REFERENCE OF VALUE OF THE COMMERCIAL PLOTS B Y CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS HIGHLY UNWARRANT ED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT EARLIER, RETURN OF INCOME WAS P ROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND AT T HAT TIME, THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER AND THE ANNEXURES W ITH THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER WERE AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MEREL Y ON GOING THROUGH THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER ALONGWITH N EWSPAPER CUTTING, HAD RECORDED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INQUIRIES FROM TH E CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VERIFYING THE RATES OF CO MMERCIAL PLOTS. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REASONS RECORDED T O SHOW THAT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAD COME INTO POSSESSION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF INTIMA TION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WOULD SHO W THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN ISSUE D IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORIENT CRAFT LTD. 354 ITR 536 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE REASONS DISC LOSED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME 'ON GOIN G THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURN UNDER SEC TION 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MORE. THIS WAS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID CONFIRM THE APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' VIS-A-VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) COULD CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REASONS RECORDED TO SHOW THAT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAD COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION. THE NOTICE REFLECTED AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. 11. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE REASONS, MERELY ON ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN FACTS WITHOUT ANY BASIS HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY @ RS. 1000/- PR SQ.YD. AS ON 01.04.1981 AND COST OF BUILDING AT RS. 100/- PER SQ.FT. THERE IS, THUS, NO COGENT MATERIAL, MUCH LE SS THE INFORMATION, WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FORMING THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ADOPTING SUCH RA TES OF LAND AND BUILDING. IT IS NOT CLARIFIED HOW THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE RATES OF LAND AND BUILDING A S HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE REASONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO MPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS BEING THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO T A TECHNICAL PERSON. THERE IS, THUS, NO VALID REASON FOR RE-OPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION OF ESCAPEMENT OF I NCOME. THERE IS NO FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEF, REASONS BEING VAGUE AND THERE IS NO NEXUS OR LIVE LINK WHICH IS A SINE- QUA FOR 4 FORMATION OF BELIEF FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-OPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT MADE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY RE-OPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACTED ONLY ON THE BASIS O F SUSPICION AND IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS BASED ON BELIE F THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS PV T. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT, EVEN THE ANNEXURE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT PRIMA FACIE SHOWED OR ESTABLISHED NEXUS OR LINK WHICH DISCLOSED ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME. 11(I) THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER SHRI ARUN MUNDRE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE DVO. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARUN MUNDRE DATED 25.03.2 013 UNDER SECTION 148/143(2) HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD IN WHIC H THERE IS A REFERENCE OF DVOS REPORT RECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFF ICER ON 06.03.2013, THEREFORE, THIS REPORT WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF THE REVENUE PRIOR TO RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF A SSESSMENT HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON 26.03.2013. IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENC E TO THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING FAIR MARKET VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING C APITAL GAINS AND THE DVO HAS INTIMATED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT DVO HAS ALREADY MADE VALUATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARUN MUNDRE, THE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SINCE STRU CTURE HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED, THEREFORE, NO VALUATION OF TH E BUILDING CAN BE GIVEN. IT WOULD SHOW THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS AVAILABLE TO THE REVENUE DEPTT. PRIOR TO ISSUE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO OTHER MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE RE-OPENING OF TH E ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, RIGHTLY RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. 328 ITR 515 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, RE-OPENING CANNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASI S OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER FILED BY ASSESSEE W AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF VAL UATION OF THE PROPERTY REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DVO IN TH E CASE OF CO-OWNER. THEREFORE, SUCH COULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE MATTER. 12. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLENS MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD TH AT SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF MATERIAL IS NOT A TH ING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE STAGE OF RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO M ATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL TO BE CONSIDERED. NO PRIMA-FACIE CASE HAV E BEEN MADE OUT FOR FORMING THE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE OF RAJAT E XPORT IMPORT CO. P.LTD. (SUPRA), THERE WAS MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD INDICATING ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM THE ENTRY PROVIDER. OTHER DECISIONS CITED BY LD. DR ALSO WOULD NOT SUPPORT CASE OF THE REVENUE. 13. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THERE WAS NO BASIS OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF 5 LAND @ RS. 1000/- PER SQ.YD. AND OF THE COST OF CON STRUCTION AT RS. 100/- PER SQ.FT. AS IS NOTED IN THE REASONS. T HERE IS NO MATERIAL, WHAT TO SAY OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MERELY ON ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION, RECORDING VAGUE AND NON- EXISTING REASONS, RECORDED THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO VALIDATE THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE MATTER. THUS, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSUME THE JU RISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 13(I) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT REFLECT AN ARBITRARY USE OF POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE RE-OPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE FORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON M ERIT BECAUSE THEY ARE LEFT FOR ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY. RESULTANTLY ALL ADDITIONS WOULD BE DELETED. 4.2 HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AKSHAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT . LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 393 ITR 658 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SOLELY RELYING UPON OR ON THE BASIS OF THE IN FORMATION IN THE FORM OF THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER'S REPORT. EXCEPT THE DIS TRICT VALUATION OFFICER'S REPORT THERE WAS NO FURTHER INQUIRY OR MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT OPINION THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. AN OPIN ION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER WAS NOT PER SE INFORMATION FOR TH E PURPOSE OF REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147. ONCE HAVING FAILED BE FORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO ENHANCE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UND ER SECTION 69, RELYING UPON THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER'S REPORT, THEREAFTER , IT WAS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 ON THE VERY SAME GROUND. NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR REOPENING COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE MATTER. IT I S WELL SETTLED LAW THAT VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFE RENCE TO THE REASONS RECORDED. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATION TO DVO WHO HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE DIFFERENCE IN COST WAS TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COST ESTIMATED BY THE DVO, THERE WERE NO OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IN THE MATTER. 6 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. DHARI YA CONSTRUCTION CO. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC) HELD 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 . THE SAME JUDGMENT IS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF MS. RAJINDER KAUR V S. ACIT (SUPRA) AND AS WELL AS HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AKSHAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THERFORE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE MATTER. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VI EW REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT REFLECT THE ARBITRARY USE OF POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THER E IS NO NEED TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS BECAUSE THEY ARE LEFT W ITH ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY. RESULTANTLY ALL ADDITIONS WOULD BE DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01/06/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE CIT(A), THE DR