Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- a.m. sapre, j.1. the short question involved in this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india is whether notice issued under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961 (annexure xiv), dated march 30, 1993, for the assessment year 1988-89 by the assistant commissioner of income-tax, circle-i, ujjain, is legal or not 2. the challenge to the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the income-tax act for reassessment for the assessment year 1988-89 was that firstly no reasons are assigned and even if assigned, they are not cogent reasoning so as to sustain the notice.3. the department has filed the return and has disclosed the reasons that led to initiation of the impugned notice under section 148 of the act. these reasons arc duly recorded by the assessing officer before issuance of the impugned notice. they are contained in annexure r3 :'it is seen that the assessee has possessed factory premises named as beacharaj at barnagar, ujjain. the value of the factory building has been shown by the assessee at rs. 5,88,100 and value of the plant and machinery has been shown at rs. 6,60,000. the valuation officer, income-tax department, indore, has ascertained the value of the property at rs. 17,02,000 as on march 31, 1988, vide valuation report f. no. vo/ind inv/225/9293, dated october 21, 1992. thus, there is a clear cut vast difference in the value shown and the value estimated by the departmental valuation officer. thus, i have reason to believe that there is escapement of income. issue notice under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1988-89. (asst. commissioner of income-tax, circle-i, ujjain.') 4. none appeared for the petitioner, heard shri patankar with shri c. r. karnik, learned counsel for the respondents.5. having perused the petition and the record of the case, i am of the view that the petition has no substance and hence the impugned notice has to be sustained. the only requirement for issuing notice under section 148 which was challenged in this petition was non-compliance of sub-section (2) of section 148 which provides for recording of reasons before issuing of notice under sub-section (1) of section 148. as observed supra, this was done by the assessing officer. so far as the adequacy of reasons are concerned, in my opinion, they are quite adequate and based on relevant facts and material. the need to issue notice arose due to noticing of vast difference between the valuation of properties disclosed by the petitioner and that of the report submitted by the valuation officer to whom the matter of valuation of the petitioner's property was referred. even the objection filed by the petitioner to the valuation report has been rejected. the petitioner has already filed the return pursuant to the impugned notice and hence the same has to be processed in accordance with law applicable to reassessment proceedings.6. in view of the aforesaid discussion, i do not find any merit in the writ. it is, accordingly, dismissed.7. as a consequence, the interim stay granted by this court stands revoked. the assessing officer is directed to complete the reassessment proceedings at an early date.8. no costs. security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded as per rules.