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

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1125 / 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 judgment does not record any findings or decisions on these questions. The operative directions are limited to admitting the appeal and directing the filing of a paper book. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the case, the reasoning behind it, and the ratio decidendi are not provided in this excerpt. No specific issue was left undecided as no decision was rendered. The relief granted, if any, is not specified.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by Surya Constructions P.LTD. (the assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(4) (the revenue). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal concerns the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously made a conclusion regarding the action taken under Section 148. The revenue's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) did not raise specific grounds challenging this conclusion. The ITAT's decision is under challenge. A reference was made to the valuation cell, resulting in a valuation report. The procedural history indicates that the High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law.

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 from the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s conclusion on the 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 considered as obtained under Section 142A of the Act? 3. Whether the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer, dated 17th February 1998, which determined the year-wise cost of construction, constitutes a valid reason to believe for reopening the assessment, especially when the assessee's books of accounts recording the cost of construction were not rejected? Assessee's contentions are not recorded in this excerpt. The Revenue's contentions are also not recorded in this excerpt. The judgment only records the framing of the questions of law.

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 1125/2006 . 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 1125/2006 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 1125/2006

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →