Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner, in this case, has challenged a proceeding arising out of a reference under Section 55A of the I.T. Act. The above reference was made by the ITO for valuation of a property sold by the petitioner resulting in loss which was incorporated in the income-tax return filed by the petitioner. Before such sale, the petitioner got the property valued through its own valuer. The reference was made on or about December 12, 1975, when the assessment was still pending. Prior to receipt of the valuation report, however, the assessment was completed by the ITO.
(2.) The main point that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the valuation proceeding has become infructuous in view of the completion of the assessment (before receipt of report) and, as such, is liable to be quashed.
(3.) Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the terms of Section 55A of the I.T. Act. He has argued that, in the first place, before referring any particular case for valuation, the ITO has to form an opinion that one of the circumstances as mentioned in Section 55A of the I.T. Act exists and (a reference) should be made. As far as the present case of reference for valuation is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the same as not bona fide. It is alleged that the same has been made to carry out a fishing and roving investigation for finding out materials for reopening or revising a completed assessment. It may be pertinent to note in this connection that, in the course of the hearing, the letter of the ITO referring the matter to the valuer dated December 12, 1975, was produced before me along with the records relating to the valuation proceeding and in compliance with my desire a true copy of the said letter has also been placed on the records of the present case by the learned counsel representing the Department. It has been submitted by Dr. Pal that the letter of reference does not indicate compliance with the pre-condition of Section 55A of the I.T. Act. It clearly shows that the necessary reference was made in compliance with a direction given to the ITO without formation of any independent opinion by him as required by the terms of the said Section 55A.;