MUKUND DAS MAHESHWARI V. THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX JABALPUR CIRCLE

WP/2427/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Mukund Das Maheshwari, the petitioner, challenging an order dated 6.1.2017 by the Assistant Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Jabalpur, which valued certain houses belonging to him. The petitioner argued that the valuation was done without granting him an opportunity of hearing, as required under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents contended that notices were issued to the petitioner, who failed to object to the valuation in time. The court examined the procedures followed and the objections raised by the petitioner, ultimately deciding that the petitioner could still contest the valuation during the assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746710 (HC-JABALPUR)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PETITIONER IN PERSON
• Keywords: Income Tax; Opportunity of Hearing; Valuation of property; Valuation Officer
• Section: 142A; 50-C

Judgement Text

"WP-2427-2017 (MUKUND DAS MAHESHWARI Vs THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX JABALPUR CIRCLE) 21-02-2017 Petitioner in person. Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 6.1.2017 passed by the Assistant Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Jabalpur in valuing certain houses belonging to the petitioner and determining the market value of the property vide order - Annexure P/8, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner who appears in person invites our attention to the procedure contemplated under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), laying down the procedure – statutory in nature, for estimation of value of assets by the Valuation Officer, and argues that the valuation has been done behind the back of the petitioner without granting him opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the entire valuation stands vitiated. However, Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Department, invites our attention to the impugned order of valuation and the order passed under section 50-C, of the Act, and points out that the assessee was issued with a notice, but as he did not file his objection to the valuation upto 5.1.2017, the impugned order has been passed. Shri Lal, learned counsel, also refers to certain observations made in the order to say that notices were issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not lead any evidence nor filed any objection. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard and no opportunity was granted to him is incorrect. In rebuttal, petitioner invites our attention to Annexure P/7 dated 4.1.2017, to say that the objections were submitted by him on 4.1.2017, but without considering the same the order has been passed and, therefore, no opportunity was granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue in question and we find that under section 142A of the Act, a detailed procedure is laid down for estimation of value of assets by the Valuation Officer. Sub-section (4) of Section 142A contemplates a provision for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, the question would be as to whether the opportunity, statutory in nature – as contemplated under sub-section (4), was granted to the petitioner. Even though in the impugned order it is mentioned that notices were issued to the petitioner, for submitting his objections to the proposal, and till 5.1.2017 he did not submit any objection, petitioner placed reliance on Annexure P/7 dated 4.1.2017 to say that he had submitted this objection. However, on a perusal of this objection filed by the petitioner, we find that it is a four page objection bearing the signature of the petitioner and it is not known as to how and in what manner, and to whom it was submitted. In the first page in the left hand corner, the name in Hindi alongwith date 4.1.2017 is mentioned. However, there is no stamp of the Income Tax Department nor is there any proof of service of this letter on the Assistant Valuation Officer. In the pleadings with regard to this document available in paragraph 5.5, petitioner says that the signature is of one Shri Shyam Sondhia – orderly, to whom the same was given. It is not known as to why the communication was given to an orderly, why it was not presented before the Assistant Valuation Officer and why the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Valuation Officer to submit this objection. There is serious doubt with regard to Annexure P/7 and, therefore, it is not an appropriate case where this dispute with regard to grant of opportunity to the petitioner and his contention can be accepted. We find that under sub-section (7) of Section 142A, when the Assessing Officer receives the Report, the Assessing Officer before taking cognizance of the report and acting on it, is again required to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, if the petitioner has any objection to the Valuation Report, he can again raise an objection to the Valuation Report before the Assessing Officer under the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 142A and, therefore, when such a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to raise objections to the Valuation Report, in the facts and circumstances of the case when there is serious dispute as to whether opportunity was granted to the petitioner or not, we see no reason to make any indulgence in the matter. Petitioner may raise the objections before the Assessing Officer, when the Assessing Officer proceeds with the assessment proceedings after taking note of the Valuation Report. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (H.P. SINGH) JUDGE aks "