- (1.) All these appeals arise from a common order dated December 31, 2003, in Income Tax Appeals Nos. 1036/Alld/96, 1037/Alld/96, 1038/Alld/96 and 1039/Alld/96 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93. The facts, in brief, are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the offices of the assessee-company and its sister concern as well as at the residential premises of its directors on February 4, 1992, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessments for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93 had been made by a composite order dated March 28, 1995, by the Assessing Officer after reopening the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The composite reassessment order was issued under section 147/143(3) of the Act.
(2.) In the course of the proceedings, the Assessing Officer appointed the Valuation Officer for valuing assets and based on that, made certain additions in the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by that order, appeals were preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, by its order dated February 29, 1996, partly allowed the appeals. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that he could not uphold the addition as the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer was arbitrary and the same could not be sustained in the eyes of law and, consequently, the additions made for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93 were deleted.
(3.) The Revenue, aggrieved by the said order, preferred the appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not agree with the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer and the addition made on that basis. Reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT, 2003 262 ITR 407, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer had no authority to make reference under section 131(1)(d) of the Act to the Departmental Valuation Officer in the income-tax proceedings to report the cost of construction, and any such addition made would not be tenable in law and after so holding, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue by the order impugned in these appeals.;