SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 (4)

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1126 / 2006HC Delhi15 January 20071 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law. The court did not decide the merits of the case in the provided text. The questions framed relate to the procedural validity of the Tribunal's examination of the case, the applicability of specific sections concerning valuation reports, and the sufficiency of reasons for reopening an assessment. The court's decision on these questions, and consequently the operative directions, are not present in the excerpt. The judgment does not record any specific findings or reasoning on the framed issues, nor does it mention any issue left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by Surya Constructions P.L.td. (the assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(4) (the Revenue). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision, though the specific nature of the Tribunal's order is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the High Court of Delhi admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law for consideration. The court also directed the filing of a paper book in accordance with High Court Rules. The amount in dispute is not mentioned.

What were the issues?

The High Court framed three substantial questions of law for consideration: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could examine the merits of the case without a specific ground raised by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s conclusion regarding action taken under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether a reference made under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the valuation cell and the subsequent valuation report could be legally deemed to be obtained under Section 142A of the Act? 3. Whether the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer dated February 17, 1998, which determined the year-wise cost of construction, constituted a reason to believe for reopening the assessment when the assessee's books of accounts recording the cost of construction were not rejected? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the provided text. Revenue: Not recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 55A,Section 142A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 1126/2006 . SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD. ..... Appellant Through versus . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 (4) ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA .

O R D E R 15.01.2007 Admit.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law are framed for our consideration:- ?1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could have examined the merits of the case in the absence of any specific ground having been raised by the Revenue challenging the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of action taken under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA 1126/2006 2. Whether the reference made under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the valuation cell and the valuation report obtained pursuant thereto could in law be deemed to be obtained under Section 142A of the Act? . 3.Whether the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer dated 17th February, 1998 determining the year-wise cost of construction constitutes reason to believe for reopening the assessment when the books of accounts of the assessee recording the cost of construction was not rejected?? . .

Paper book be filed in accordance with the High Court Rules. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . V. B. GUPTA, J JANUARY 15, 2007 sb . . ITA 1126/2006

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →