JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - Revenue has preferred the instant appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge, thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act; also quashing the order rejecting the preliminary objection preferred by the assessee and imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the revenue.

2. When the writ petition was filed on 16-12-2016 the challenge was only to the notice issued on 21-9-2015 (Annexure - P/6 to WP) under Section 147 of the Act; order dated 13-12-2016 (Annexure - P/9 to WP); order dated 12-6-2015 (Annexure - P/5 to WP) under Section 55 A of the Act read with Section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act, 1957'); and the notice under Section 55 A of the Act read with Section 16A(4) of the Act, 1957, however, during pendency of the petition the final assessment order was passed on 20-12-2016, therefore, the writ petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge the said assessment order also. The learned Single Judge has allowed the main prayers made in the writ petition.

3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 was reopened after having information that the assessee Smt. Kamala Ojha, had got an amount of Rs.2,00,02,500/-, as her share of sale consideration of the house property situated at plot No.13, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai corresponding to CTS No. 917/1 to 917/6. The sale transaction took place on 16-12-2010 i.e. during the financial year 2010-11, assessment year 2011-12, however, the capital gain on the sale of the said property on her share of capital gain was not correctly disclosed in the Return of income(for short 'ROI') for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12, filed belatedly in the year ending on 31-3-2013. During an inquiry by the then Assessment Officer, the assessee had submitted two valuation reports on two different occasions, one dated 28-6-2013 prepared by the registered valuer Mr. Anmol Sekhri valuing the subject property for Rs.11,13,000/- as on 1-4-1981 and the second report dated 24-10-2013 prepared by a registered valuer Shri Kiran Sowani valuing the subject property for Rs.30,00,000/- as on 1-4-1981. On applying the index cost, the value of the property during financial year 2010-11 comes to Rs.79,13,430/-. For half share of the assessee the cost at her hands came to be Rs.39,56,715/-. Thus, the capital gain on the sale of the said property in the hands of the assessee came to be assessed at Rs.1,60,45,785/-, but this income on account of capital gain was not correctly disclosed by the assessee in the ROI filed on 31-3-2013, therein showing return income of Rs.69,983/- only.

4. Since two valuation reports were filed by the assessee herself within a span four months the first showing value of Rs.11,13,000/- and the second showing value of Rs.30,00,000/- the AO felt it necessary to enquire and examine the genuineness of the valuation reports. During assessment proceedings the property was referred to the Approved Valuer of the Department to know the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 by invoking Section 55A of the Act for which the notice along with report Annexure - P/3 was served on the writ petitioner. In the report the fair market value of the property as on 1-4-1981 was valued at Rs.8,34,300/-. Initially the assessee did not reply to the notice, but eventually she filed objections two days prior to 31-3-2015, therefore, the DVO (Departmental Valuation Officer) expressed his inability to send the final report on or before 31-3-2015 and requested the AO to pass protective assessment order subject to rectification on receipt of final valuation report as it was a time barring case.

5. In the above circumstances, the AO passed the protective order of assessment on 31-3-2015 subject to receiving the final valuation report. The AO received the final valuation report dated 12-6-2015,