- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 18 of 2008 C I T BIKANER V/S SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SAHARAN Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 4.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143 and not under Section 144 or 145. In such circumstances, in our view, may be that Section 142A has been introduced w.e.f. 1992, but then Section 142A also provides for making reference to the Valuation Officer, where, an estimate of value of any investment referred to in Section 69, or Section 69B, or the value of any bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article referred to in Section 69A, or Section 69B, “is required to be made”, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make estimate. Then a look at Section 69A, 69B, and Section 69 would show that the three provisions contemplate unexplained investment, or unexplained money, or amounts of investment not fully - 2 - disclosed in the books of accounts. It is not the case, that the assessee has not fully disclosed the investment in the books of accounts, rather the books of accounts have been found to be regularly maintained, and if the Assessing Officer felt necessary, he could issue notices under Section 143(2), and still if the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of that notice, perhaps recourse to Sections 69, 69A, or 69B could be had but then in our view, Section 142A does not empower the Assessing Officer in each and every case of regular assessment, as of routine, to refer the matter to Valuation Officer. Obviously on the very face of language of Section 142A, the recourse is applicable, only in cases referred to in Section 69, 69A, and 69B. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/