Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun & another ………….Appellants. Versus M/s Sachin Hotels (P) Ltd. 108, B.T. Ganj, Roorkee ………Respondent. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The present Income Tax Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi has erred in law in holding that action U/S 148 cannot be taken on the basis of DVO’s report, as the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendran reported in 288 ITR 312 (Mad) does not apply to the facts of the case? 2. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi, has erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on technical ground without going into merits when the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand view in the case of Bhawani Shankar Vyas Vs. CIT, Dehradun dated 18.11.2008 ITA No. 126 of 2007, ITA No. 125 of 2007, ITA No. 153 of 2007, ITA No. 127 of 2007, ITA No. 131 of 2007, ITA No. 156 of 2007 and ITA No. 158 of 2007 in favour of the Revenue on the issue that the A.O. was justified in referring the property to the D.V.O. for valuation without rejecting the books of accounts?” The first substantial question of law has already been decided in connected appeal (Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal & another Vs. M/s Sachin Hotel (P) Ltd., decided on 26.07.2010 and, therefore, as far as the first substantial 2 question of law is concerned, the same is decided in terms of the order passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal & another Vs. M/s Sachin Hotel (P) Ltd. Regarding the second substantial question of law, although it was not a substantial question of law framed in Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal & another Vs. M/s Sachin Hotel (P) Ltd., yet the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine this issue earlier in Income Tax Appeal No. 125 of 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Bhawani Shankar Vyas (and other connected appeals) reported in 2009-(311)- ITR-0008-UTT, wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer under the powers vested to it under Section 131 (1) (d) read with Section 142 A of the Act had full powers to call for a report of District Valuation Officer without first rejecting the books of account. Therefore, the second substantial question of law is also decided in terms of the order passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 125 of 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Bhawani Shankar Vyas (and other connected appeals) reported in 2009-(311)- ITR-0008-UTT. The instant Income Tax Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.07.2010 Avneet