Wp(Md)/11347/2019 Of N.ramesh v. The Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building 2[Nd] Floor

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 30.04.2019CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEW.P. No.11347 of 2019andW.M.P. Nos.8647 & 8648 of 2019N.Ramesh : PetitionerVs. 1.The Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building 2[nd] Floor, No.2, VP.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Tax Officer Ward – 3(2), Thiruchirapalli. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, callingfor the records relating to the impugned valuation report issued bythe first respondents proceedings in No.EE(V)/MDU/IT/2347/2018-19/839, dated 25.03.2019 and proceedings in No.EE(V)/MDU/2347/IT/2019-2020/848, dated 10.04.2019 and the consequentialproceedings of the second respondent vide PAN: /AY:2012-13,dated 22.04.2019 consequently direct the respondents herein toafford petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to raiseobjections by furnishing copies of all documents and materialsrelied on by the respondents. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging theproceedings dated 25.03.2019 of the first respondent and theproceedings dated 10.04.2019 of the second respondent and theconsequential proceedings dated 22.04.2019 of the second respondentand consequently direct the respondents to afford the petitioner areasonable opportunity of hearing and to raise objections byfurnishing copies of all documents and materials relied upon by therespondents. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed returnsbefore the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2012-13https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/fixing the sale of the property in Ward C, Block 19, T.S.No.7/1 atKodaikanal Town. As per the said return, the petitioner and other co-ownersjointlyreceivedthesaleconsiderationofRs.1,00,21,000/- from the purchasers. The petitioner's share wasRs.18,03,780/- and his wife Chitra Ramesh's share wasRs.48,50,164/-andhisbrother-in-lawRamanan'sshareRs.33,67,056/-. By order dated 26.10.2015, the petitioner was calledupon to the office of the second respondent for some clarificationrelating to the said value of the aforesaid property. According tothe petitioner, by proceedings dated 26.09.2016, the petitioner wascalled upon to furnish documents and particulars regarding theaforesaid sale and the second respondent alleged in the saidproceedings that the market value of the property isRs.1,33,23,500/- and not Rs.1,21,00,000/- as disclosed in theoriginal return of income filed by the petitioner. Thereafter,according to the petitioner, he has produced all the particularsrequired by the Income Tax Department to them. 3.According to the petitioner, an enquiry was also also held on17.08.2016 pursuant to notice dated 15.07.2016 issued under Section142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment. Thepetitioner requested the second respondent to refer the matter tothe Valuation Cell of the Department. According to the petitioner,acceding to the request, the second respondent also referred thematter to their valuation cell. According to the petitioner, thesecond respondent after referring the issue to the valuation cell ofthe department on 11.11.2016 under Section 50C and 55A of the IncomeTax, had by proceedings dated 30.12.2016 completed the assessmentfor the year 2012-13 under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. 3.According to the petitioner, an enquiry was also also held on17.08.2016 pursuant to notice dated 15.07.2016 issued under Section142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment. Thepetitioner requested the second respondent to refer the matter tothe Valuation Cell of the Department. According to the petitioner,acceding to the request, the second respondent also referred thematter to their valuation cell. According to the petitioner, thesecond respondent after referring the issue to the valuation cell ofthe department on 11.11.2016 under Section 50C and 55A of the IncomeTax, had by proceedings dated 30.12.2016 completed the assessmentfor the year 2012-13 under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. 4.According to the petitioner, the first respondent issuedenquiry notice on 24.11.2016, calling upon the petitioner to appearon 05.12.2016, thereafter, he appeared and furnished all thedocuments and details required by the first respondent. But all ofa sudden, on 25.03.2019, it was informed by the first respondentthat he inspected the site on 06.09.2018 and that from the perusalof documents he had arrived at the market value of the properties ason 14.11.2011 and called upon the petitioner to raise objections, ifany, by 09.04.2019. The petitioner sent a reply dated 06.04.2019,seeking for further time to file his objections. However, accordingto the petitioner, by proceedings dated 10.04.2019, his request forfurther time was denied and the first respondent had referred thematter back to the second respondent. 5.According to the petitioner, the first respondent byproceedings dated 22.04.2019, had informed the petitioner that hehad already received the valuation report. By the same proceedings,the copy of the preliminary report was also attached. Therefore,according to the petitioner, he was not given adequate opportunityto raise objections to the valuation report obtained from thevaluation cell of the respondent. In such circumstances, theinstant Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the impugnedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/proceedings. 6.Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents. 7.Admittedly, no assessment order has been passed by therespondents pursuant to the reopening of the assessment for theassessment year 2012-2013. None of the impugned proceedings arefinal orders passed by the respondents. The first impugnedproceeding dated 25.03.2019 is a notice calling upon the petitionerto raise objections to the valuation report. The second impugnedproceedings dated 10.04.2019 is the valuation report obtained by therespondent for the property which was sold by the petitioner. Thethird impugned proceedings is the communication sent by the secondrespondent enclosing the valuation report, for the property.Excepting for finalisation of the valuation report by therespondents, no assessment order has been passed. 7.Admittedly, no assessment order has been passed by therespondents pursuant to the reopening of the assessment for theassessment year 2012-2013. None of the impugned proceedings arefinal orders passed by the respondents. The first impugnedproceeding dated 25.03.2019 is a notice calling upon the petitionerto raise objections to the valuation report. The second impugnedproceedings dated 10.04.2019 is the valuation report obtained by therespondent for the property which was sold by the petitioner. Thethird impugned proceedings is the communication sent by the secondrespondent enclosing the valuation report, for the property.Excepting for finalisation of the valuation report by therespondents, no assessment order has been passed. 8.According to the petitioner, adequate opportunity ought tohave been given to him before finalisation of the valuation report.It is his case that arbitrarily the respondents have rejected therequest made by the petitioner for extension of time to submit hisobjections for the valuation report by letter dated 06.04.2019 andby the impugned proceedings dated 10.04.2019 within three daysthereafter, the respondent has finalised the valuation report, whichdiscloses a higher value than what was disclosed by the petitionerin the original return of income filed by him. It is always open tothe petitioner to furnish a fresh valuation and submit the same inthe assessment proceedings. The respondent cannot have anyobjection if such a valuation report is produced by the petitionerto establish that the valuation of the property disclosed in hisoriginal return of income is the correct valuation in the assessmentproceedings. But, it is for the assessing officer to consider allthe documentary evidence placed by both the revenue as well as theassessee namely, the petitioner herein objectively and independentlyin accordance with law and pass an assessment order thereafter. 9.In the light of the above observations, this Court is of theconsidered view that the impugned proceedings no way will causeprejudice to the petitioner as it is always open to the petitionerto raise all objections available to him under law in the assessmentproceedings before the assessing officer. However, the assessingofficer shall consider all the objections raised by the petitionerregarding the valuation of the aforesaid property including grantinghim the opportunity to file a valuation report to establish that thevalue declared by him under the original return of income is thecorrect value and not the value as determined by the firstrespondent. 10.With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposedof. However, the second respondent is directed to furnish copies ofall the five documents referred to in the impugned valuation reportto the petitioner within a period of four [4] weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )To1.The Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building 2[nd] Floor, No.2, VP.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002.2.The Income Tax Officer, Tax Officer Ward – 3(2), Thiruchirapalli.+1 CC to M/s.VR.SHANMUGANATHAN, Advocate ( SR-64340[F] dated30/04/2019 )+1 CC to M/s.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-64787[F] dated02/05/2019 ) CS: 28/05/2019/4P/5C ORDER MADE INW.P. No.11347 of 201930.04.2019