Archana Hitesh Somani Alias Archana Ramankumar Mundara v. Income Tax Officer

C/SCA/10467/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10467 of 2018 ========================================================== ARCHANA HITESH SOMANI ALIAS ARCHANA RAMANKUMAR MUNDARAVersusINCOME TAX OFFICER ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 01/10/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Petitioner has challenged the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts may be necessary. reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. Brief facts may be necessary. 2.Petitioner is an individual. For the assessment year 2011-12, the petitioner had filed return of income which was taken in scrutiny. Order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 15.5.2017. To reopen such assessment, impugned notice came to be issued on 20.3.2018 which as can be seen was done beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing such notice he had indicated only C/SCA/10467/2018 ORDER one ground viz. the sale consideration of Rs.7 lacs and Rs.4.75 lacs disclosed that the assessee for sale of two shops in Vyavasay Complex Shop No.FF-1 and FF-2 respectively. According to the Assessing Officer, the jantri value of such properties was Rs.16,62,600/- and Rs.12,01,200 respectively. 3. While examining this petition, the Court permitted the Assessing Officer to proceed further with the assessment but did not pass final order of assessment. We are informed by the advocates for the parties that pursuant to such liberty granted the Assessing Officer had made a reference to the Department of Valuation Officer ('DVO' for short) regarding the valuation of the properties in question. The DVO has given his report on 18.9.2018, copy of which is tendered on record. This report confirms the valuation of the property at par with the sale consideration disclosing the sale deeds. In other words, counsel for the Revenue agreed that there is no scope for making any additions in the hands of the assessee concerning the said transactions. Consequently therefore, fresh assessment would be completed without making any additions. Presumably because the Court did not permit the Assessing Officer to pass the C/SCA/10467/2018 ORDER final order same was not done. Under the circumstances, no purpose would be served in surviving this litigation. When the very basis for issuing the notice is knocked out by virtue of subsequent developments, we allow the petition setting aside the notice and put an end to the litigation keeping other questions raised by the Revenue open. 4. Petition is disposed of. (AKIL KURESHI, J) K.K. SAIYED (B.N. KARIA, J)