Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2022 2010 SLD 2022 (2010) 320 ITR 168
Allahabad High Court
IT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 99 OF 2004, AUGUST 19, 2009
R. K. AGRAWAL AND SHASHI KANT GUPTA, JJ.
Shambhu Chopra for the Appellant.

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Gulam Mohammad

Law:

Section:

Section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Income escaping assessment - General - Assessment year 1990-91 Where original assessment order was passed on 14-1-1991, that is much before 28-11-2003 and it had become final between parties on date when section 142A was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, in such a case, reassessment proceedings, on basis of report of Departmental Valuation Officer in respect of investment made in construction of building would be hit by proviso to section 142A [In favour of assessee] Where the original assessment order was passed on 14-1-1991, that is much before 28-11-2003 and it had become final between the parties on the date when section 142A was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, in such a case, reassessment proceedings, on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer in respect of investment made in the construction of building would be hit by the proviso to section 142A. Shambhu Chopra for the Appellant. JUDGMENT 1. The assessment order under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91, was originally framed on January 4, 1991. On the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer in respect of investment made in the construction of building by the respondent-assessee at building material market in Maida Bazar, Kanpur, proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act, was initiated and vide his order dated December 16, 1997, the Assessing Officer added the difference in the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer and the investment shown by the assessee as income from other sources which order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, vide order dated November 28, 2003, had quashed the reassessment order. 2. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel appearing for respondent assessee. 3. Relying on the provisions of section 142A of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492