JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. It claims that the following substantial questions of law arise in this case : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in : (i) holding that the assessment under S. 147 based on valuation report was void, in view of the fact that the assessment was framed for the first time under S. 143 and there was no regular/scrutiny assessment earlier and also in view of the facts that provisions of S. 147 have been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, which no longer requires failure of assessee to disclose material facts as a precondition. (ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 68,518 even when the question regarding adequacy of profits was never examined earlier, thus, making it factually incorrect to say that the issue should (be) concluded, and even after the amended law specifically authorizing the AO in S. 147 to examine any issue where income was not correctly assessed".
(2.) A few facts may be noticed. The assessee derives income from job work and interest. She filed her return of income for the asst. year 1989 90. The assessment was completed under S. 143(1). The assessee along with her husband constructed a house No. 28, Sector 14, Faridabad. She held a share of 50 per cent in the property. During the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee's husband, the AO referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. On the basis of the report, certain additions were made in the cost of construction. As a result, an addition of Rs. 10,705 was made "in the hands of assessee's husband Shri B.C. Mathur on account of investment in construction of house". On the basis of the valuation report, the AO issued notice under S. 148 to the assessee and reopened her case. The assessee's husband challenged the action of the AO in making addition in his income. Finally, vide order dt. 18th Oct., 1993, the Dy. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee's husband. The Revenue did not challenge that order. In the present case, the assessee challenged the validity of the order reopening her assessment and also the addition made to her income on account of the cost of construction. Her appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. After consideration of the matter, the assessee's claim has been accepted. It has been found that "the valuation report cannot be made basis of reopening the assessment which has already been finalised......."
(3.) THE assessee had another grievance. An addition had been made to her income relating to the sale of jewellery. Her appeal against that part of the order passed by the AO had been dismissed by the CIT(A). Even this addition was challenged. After consideration of the matter, the Tribunal found that "the assessee has already returned her income on the basis of previous history as well as by giving P&L a/c and balance sheet, which was accepted by the Department. Having accepted that, the Department while reopening the assessment under S. 147 cannot validly reassess the income which will amount to a review of the order". Thus, the addition was not sustained.;