SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

ITA 47/ALLD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 August 2021AY 2008-097 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not invalid due to limitation as no return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice. However, it found that the Assessing Officer erred by not referring the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2) when the assessee objected to the deemed consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the addition made under Section 50C. The primary contention was the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the Assessing Officer's failure to refer the property valuation to the DVO as per Section 50C(2).

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, and whether the Assessing Officer correctly applied Section 50C without referring the property valuation to the DVO upon objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A
For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.08.2021Pronounced: 13.08.2021

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds.

1.

Because in the facts and circumstances of the case assessment made u/s 143(3)147 by order dated 15.12.2010 on income of Rs. 17,99,340/-

2.

Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and since the assessee was not well for last more than 6 months and undergoing dialysis at Lucknow hospital therefore compliance could not be made hence ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is not correct

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →