Anil Agarwal vs Valuation Officer

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Anil Agarwal of Ghaziabad, seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 29-1-1998 (Annexure �4�) and the subsequent notices dated 11-8-1998 and 28-8-1998 (Annexures �9� and �10�, respectively). These notices have been issued by the Valuation Officer (Valuation Cell), income tax, Meerut, respondent No. 1. At the out-set, the Court made an enquiry from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the notices were without jurisdiction. The answer was that they were not. Admittedly, notices have been issued in reference to the context by the ITO, Ward-1, Ghaziabad, vide his letter No. Valuation/ITO/W-1/GZB/IT dated 4-12-1997 u/s 131(1)(d) of the income tax Act, 1961 (�the Act�). It is not disputed that the income tax Act had provided for a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55D of the Act. The enquiries, which were being sought from the petitioner No. 11 of them relate to details of the property and construction upon it. The subsequent notices seek further enquiries from the petitioner. By the notice dated 11-8-1998 (Annexure �9�), an enquiry had been made from the petitioner to the effect, that the sale deed, which had been furnished, reveals that it had been registered in June, 1990. But the petitioner had intimated that the property had been purchased during the financial year 1991-92. The Valuation Officer has communicated to the petitioner that the information disclosed about purchase of the land should be during the financial year 1990-91 but the Valuation Officer desires to know whether purchase of the land should be reckoned either in the year 1990-91 or 1991-92. The Court is making no comments on the merits of the case. The petitioner responded to the notice by his reply dated 24-9-1998. There-after, the petitioner received a communication from the Valuation Officer dated 28-8-1998 (Annexure �10�) that further time being sought for furnishing the expenditure details is granted and an information now may be furnished on or before 28-9-1998. The petitioner furnished an information by his reply dated 24-9-1998 (Annexure �11�). The petitioner obtained a report from the approved valuer dated 18-9-1998 which indicates that on the property, in question, the construction is still going on and the total work is yet to be completed.

As the matter is engaging attention of the Valuation Officer and the construction which is still partly incomplete and the notices issued to the petitioner are not lacking in any jurisdiction, this petition is misconceived and, accordingly, dismissed.