C I T vs. N S BAKSHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-II. ..... Appellant-revenue Versus Shri N.S. Bakshi, 1826, Sector 17-A, Gurgaon, Haryana ..... Respondent-assessee CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. For the assessment year 1997-98 return declaring an income of Rs.2,17,650/- was processed on 24.05.1999. During the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer while computing the valuation of house property referred the case to the Distt. Valuation Officer for its valuation. On examination of the valuation filed by the assessee, it was found that there was a huge difference of Rs.17,89,000/- on the value of property assessed by the assessee and by the District Valuation. Hence, an addition of Rs.17,89,000/- was made in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98. Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-II, Ludhiana ( hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana” ), who vide his order dated 28.11.2002, has deleted the addition.

Not satisfied with the order of CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 7th October, 2005. The operative part of the order is reproduced:- “It is evident from Section 142 A quoted above that whereas the section has been incorporated retrospectively, w.e.f. 15.11.1972, by the finance ( No.2 ) Act, 2004, it has been specifically provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment of made on or before the 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date. In this case, the assessment was made earlier than 30th Sept., 2004 and reopening of the assessment prior to 30th Sept., 2004 on the basis of DVO's report would also not justified. We are, therefore, of the view that the controversy on merits of the addition is necessary. We accordingly find no justification to interfere with the order of CIT (A). The appeal of the revenue is accordingly dismissed.” However, after preliminary hearing, this Court issued notice to assessee on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the law and on the facts of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Assessing Officer was not empowered to refer the case to the District Valuation Officer and the interpretation of Section 142-A of the Income Tax Act was justified?”

Shri Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant- revenue has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in disallowing the departmental appeal by relying upon the decision in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT, 262 ITR 407 ( SC ) and has not properly interpreted the provisions of Section 142A of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the revenue, Section 142A of the Act has been inserted with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.1972 and the Assessing Officer has always power to make a reference to the Valuation Officer, so the decision of Tribunal does not appear to be passed on the correct appreciation of facts of the case and, therefore, the question of law as raised by him, does arise from the order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent-assessee has argued that the question of law raised by the revenue has actually no effect on the decision of the case and is purely academic in nature because even if the question of law as raised by the revenue is answered in favour of the department even then in view of the pure finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana found that the report of the Valuation Officer is not reliable and the addition made on the basis of Valuation were deleted. The revenue has not challenged the said finding of fact before the Tribunal when the attention of Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue was drawn towards this point he could not controvert. In view of this undisputed fact, we do not deem it necessary to answer the question of law as raised by the revenue in the present appeal, being of no consequence.

In view of the finding of fact, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal being without any merit, is dismissed. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.04.2008 dinesh