PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JIGNESH BHAGWANDAS PATEL

Facts

This is a Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The ITAT's order was dated November 1, 2018, in ITA No. 83/AHD/2016/SRT. The Revenue had appealed to the ITAT, and the assessee had filed cross-objections. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections. The present Tax Appeal before the High Court is in connection with the cross-objections filed by the assessee. The Revenue's counsel stated that no adverse order was passed concerning the assessee's cross-objections, and therefore, the appeal would not survive.

Held

The High Court noted that the appeal before the ITAT was filed by the Revenue, and the assessee had filed cross-objections. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal and also the assessee's cross-objections. The present Tax Appeal was filed by the Revenue in connection with the cross-objections filed by the assessee. The Revenue's counsel submitted that since no adverse order was passed concerning the assessee's cross-objections, the Tax Appeal would not survive. Based on this submission, the High Court disposed of the Tax Appeal. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue regarding the cost of acquisition and the notice under Section 143(2) were not adjudicated on merits by the High Court.

Key Issues

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to calculate the cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 99/- per sq. mtr. as of April 1, 1981, despite the registered valuer not providing any comparable sale instances? (Question of law and fact, concerning the determination of cost of acquisition). 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in dismissing the Revenue's appeal without considering the assessee's letter dated April 21, 2014, which stated that a notice under Section 143(2) was issued? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the Tax Appeal before the High Court would not survive because no adverse order was passed concerning the assessee's cross-objections before the ITAT, and the ITAT had dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections.