(Mukund Das Maheshwari_ v. The Commissionerof Income Tax Jabalpur Circle)_

WP-2427-2017 (MUKUND DAS MAHESHWARIVs 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 ValuationOfficer, Income Tax Department, Jabalpur in valuing certain housesbelonging to the petitioner and determining the market value of theproperty vide order - Annexure P/8, petitioner has filed this writpetition. Petitioner who appears in person invites our attention to the procedurecontemplated 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 ValuationOfficer, and argues that the valuation has been done behind the back ofthe petitioner without granting him opportunity of hearing and,therefore, the entire valuation stands vitiated. However, Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for therespondents/Department, invites our attention to the impugned orderof valuation and the order passed under section 50-C, of the Act, andpoints out that the assessee was issued with a notice, but as he did notfile his objection to the valuation upto 5.1.2017, the impugned orderhas been passed. Shri Lal, learned counsel, also refers to certain observations made inthe order to say that notices were issued to the petitioner, but thepetitioner did not lead any evidence nor filed any objection.Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the contention of thepetitioner that he was not heard and no opportunity was granted to himis incorrect. In rebuttal, petitioner invites our attention to Annexure P/7 dated4.1.2017, 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 islaid down for estimation of value of assets by the Valuation Officer.Sub-section (4) of Section 142A contemplates a provision for giving anopportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, the questionwould be as to whether the opportunity, statutory in nature � ascontemplated under sub-section (4), was granted to the petitioner.Even though in the impugned order it is mentioned that notices wereissued to the petitioner, for submitting his objections to the proposal,and till 5.1.2017 he did not submit any objection, petitioner placedreliance on Annexure P/7 dated 4.1.2017 to say that he had submittedthis objection. However, on a perusal of this objection filed by the petitioner, we findthat it is a four page objection bearing the signature of the petitionerand it is not known as to how and in what manner, and to whom it wassubmitted. In the first page in the left hand corner, the name in Hindialongwith date 4.1.2017 is mentioned. However, there is no stamp ofthe Income Tax Department nor is there any proof of service of thisletter on the Assistant Valuation Officer. In the pleadings with regardto this document available in paragraph 5.5, petitioner says that thesignature is of one Shri Shyam Sondhia � orderly, to whom the samewas given. It is not known as to why the communication wasgiven to an orderly, why it was not presented before the Assistant Valuation Officer and why the petitioner did not appear before theAssistant Valuation Officer to submit this objection. There is seriousdoubt with regard to Annexure P/7 and, therefore, it is not anappropriate case where this dispute with regard to grant of opportunityto the petitioner and his contention can be accepted. We find that under sub-section (7) of Section 142A, when the AssessingOfficer receives the Report, the Assessing Officer before takingcognizance of the report and acting on it, is again required to give anopportunity of hearing to the assessee and, therefore, if the petitionerhas any objection to the Valuation Report, he can again raise anobjection to the Valuation Report before the Assessing Officer underthe provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 142A and, therefore, whensuch a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to raise objections to the Valuation Report, in the facts and circumstances of the casewhen there is serious dispute as to whether opportunity was granted tothe petitioner or not, we see no reason to make any indulgence in thematter. Petitioner may raise the objections before the Assessing Officer, whenthe Assessing Officer proceeds with the assessment proceedings aftertaking note of the Valuation Report. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this writ petitionstands disposed of. CC as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON)(H.P. SINGH)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEJUDGE aks