M/S. Hotel Karni Bhawan, Ratanada, Jodhpur v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2899/1997 M/s. Hotel Karni Bhawan, Ratanada, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Officer (Ward I), Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Mehta Mr. Tarun Dudia For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 18/10/2023 On 13[th] September, 2023 when the matter was taken up forhearing, following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred tothe judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Dhariya Construction Co. ([2010] 328 ITR 515 SC) tocontend that the report of the District Valuation Officer(DVO) cannot be made the basis for issuing notice underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act. It has been statedtherein that it is the satisfaction of the competentauthority after due consideration showing application ofmind that such a notice can be issued assigning reasonstherein. Counsel has further contended that the issuewith regard to similar valuation reports of the DistrictValuation Officer for the subsequent assessment yearshave been interfered with and the Commissioner haspassed order dated 13[th] September, 2004 in favour ofthe petitioner for the assessment year 1996-97 i.e.,subsequent to the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, which is the subject matter of the present writpetition. Learned counsel for the Revenue to seekinstructions. It is made clear that in case the assertion,as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, is foundto be correct, it would be open to the competentauthority to drop the notice(s) issued to the petitionerfor the relevant assessment years. List this case for consideration on 27[th] September,2023.” In pursuance to the said directions, learned counsel forrespondents submits that he has not been able to get theinstructions from the department. Having considered the case in hand, we dispose of thepresent petition by directing the competent authority that in casethe factual assertions as made in the order referred to above arecorrect, it may proceed to pass appropriate orders includingdropping of the notices issued to the petitioner for the relevantassessment years. The said decision be taken within a period ofsix weeks from today. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 1-Jayesh/-