Wp(C)/33554/2016 Of Muhammed Ashraf O.k v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 33554 of 2016 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- MUHAMMED ASHRAF O.K,ORUPURAM KANDATH HOUSE, KODUVALLY, CALICUT - 673 572. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 005. 2. VALUATION OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA: KOZHIKODE - 673 005. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, (CG) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:----------------------- RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGEmbr/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33554 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 by which the 1[st] respondenthad called upon the petitioner to file objections to the reply on theproposed assessment of unexplained investment. 2. The matter was posted on 06.10.2016. It is submitted thatthe matter is adjourned to another date. In Ext.P7, the 1[st]respondent relies upon valuation report Ext.P4 prepared by a valuerengaged for the aforesaid purpose. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 as well. It is inter aliacontended that though the valuation officer was required toestimate the investment in construction of the building, he hadproceeded further and had even gone to the extent of computingthe value of the property which the petitioner's wife had given onthe basis of a gift deed. It is submitted that the entire manner inwhich the valuation report had been prepared is totally unjustifiablewhich is evident from the report itself. However, the assessingauthority without even caring to look into any of the irrelevantaspects involved in the valuation report had called upon thepetitioner to file objection to the proposed assessment. Thepetitioner apprehends that the assessing officer may not considerany of the objections relating to the valuation as he is bound to takeinto account the said valuation report. 4. First of all, the questions whether the valuation reportprepared by the valuer is proper or not are not matters which thisCourt is concerned at this stage of proceedings. The valuation hasbeen obtained by the 1[st] respondent taking note of the fact that thebuilding requires a valuation by an approved valuer. If thepetitioner has objection to the valuation report and if the petitioneris of the view that the valuer had proceeded on irrelevantconsiderations and had relied upon irrelevant materials and hadeven exceeded the task given to him, it shall always be open for thepetitioner to point out the same before the 1[st] respondent, while anassessment is being made as per the statutory format. 5. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to file appropriateobjection before the assessing officer, namely the 1[st] respondent,ventilating the grievances even in respect of the infirmities thatcould be pointed out in regard to the valuation report and it is forthe 1[st] respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. It ismade clear that any objection raised by the petitioner with regard tothe valuation report shall be considered, while passing final orderspursuant to Ext.P7. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.