Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has been assessed after he filed bis income-tax return for the year ending on June 30, 1984, for the assessment year 1985-86. THE assessment order has been filed by the petitioner as annexure 3 which is dated August 7, 1987. THE petitioner filed his balance-sheet with the return before the assessing authority. THE same is produced as annexure 1. In this balance-sheet, the petitioner has shown the value of the house property at Jaswantgarh at Rs. 2,75,000.
(2.) PRIOR to the completion of the assessment for the year 1985-86 and passing of the assessment order annexure 3, respondent No. 3 had made a reference to the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax Office, vide his letter dated April 20, 1987, to assess the value of the house. A letter of reference has been produced as annexure 4. Before this valuation report could come to respondent No. 3, as desired by him vide letter annexure 4, he proceeded with the assessment and on August 7, 1987, he completed the assessment. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as "the Act"), alleging that he proposes to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86. The petitioner filed his objections vide annexure 8. The objections of the petitioner were replied vide annexure 9 and the petitioner was asked to file his return and no reasons were disclosed for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner filed his objections on November 2, 1988, which were produced with the writ petition as annexure 10. In these objections it was submitted that the return already filed by him may be treated as a return as required by the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by respondent No. 3 on September 7, 1988, and prayed, inter alia, that the proceedings may be dropped. A return has been filed by the respondent-Department and in the return it has been contended that respondent No. 3 while proceeding with the assessment had written to respondent No. 4 to determine the cost of the house of the assessee and to send his valuation report of the property. After the submission of his report by the Valuation Officer, the assessing authority reopened the case of the assessee under Section 148 of the Act and prior to the issuance of the notice the reasons were recorded. What reasons have been assigned by the Department for reopening of the assessment and issuing the notice, have not been disclosed and communicated to the assessee. What appears from the return filed on behalf of the Department is that the report of the Valuation Officer has weighed with the assessing authority and forms the sole basis for initiation of the reassessment proceedings. From the reading of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that the only information in possession of respondents No. 3 appears to be the valuation report submitted by the Departmental Valuation Officer. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued purportedly acting under Section 147(b) of the Act. This means that the assessing authority as a consequence of the information in his possession has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per the return filed by the respondents, the only information available with the assessing authority respondent No. 3 was the valuation report submitted by the official Valuation Officer of the Department. Can such information, i.e., the valuation report, be made the basis of reopening the assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is the sole question for determination in this writ petition.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the valuation report submitted by the official Valuation Officer is nothing more than a piece of opinion expressed by the Valuation Officer and opinion evidence cannot constitute an information so as to give respondent No. 3 an apprehension to comprehend that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Before any information can be said to be sufficient to enable the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment order it should be of the nature so as to acquaint, enlighten or instruct the mind of the assessing authority for the first time concerning the matter relating to taxable income. As regards the valuation report of the Valuation Officer which has been made the basis of the notice for reopening the assessment it can be said that the assessing authority himself had made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer on April 20, 1987, to send his report. Not only was the assessing authority aware of the fact that such report has been called for by him but he was aware that the assessment was likely to get time barred by March 31, 1988. He could have asked the Departmental Valuation Officer to have expedited the submission of the valuation report. Still the assessing authority had completed the assessment on August 7, 1987, though the assessment could be made up to March 31, 1988. The departmental authorities felt satisfied that the information sought by them from the official Valuation Officer is of no consequence and, therefore, the assessing authority had passed the assessment order as otherwise the assessment order could have been further delayed. Thus, the valuation report was not such a piece of document which can be said to have the nature so as to acquaint, enlighten or instruct the mind of the assessing authority for the first time regarding the dispute in relation to the valuation of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the conclusions of the assessing authority are based on change of opinion because the Valuation Officer's report cannot be termed to be better than an opinion evidence only and in this background the opinion of the assessing authority is based on a change of opinion which is again not a justifiable basis for passing an order as the impugned one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision rendered by this court in the matter of CIT v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh and Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788. In this case, a Division Bench of this court has held that the valuation report can be taken into consideration only when the books of account are not reliable or are not supported by proper vouchers or the Income-tax Officer is of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on such books of account. In the instant case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act does not disclose the reasons. In the reasons contained in the reply filed by the respondents, it has not been said on behalf of the respondents that the books of account, which were considered at the time of passing of the assessment order annexure 3 are not reliable. Once the books of account are held to be reliable, the respondent authorities cannot legitimately contend that the valuation report can be made the basis of reopening of assessment. ;