Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 58/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)
…which were those assets that were handedover to it by the DMRC. That basic exercise of determining to what extent the depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. iii) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del), wherein it is held as under :- IT: Where Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received in computation of capital loss but he had not examined said aspect himself, order of remit could not be passed by Commissioner asking Assessing Officer to decide whether order was erroneous iv) Sauria Agarwal Vs. Pr.CIT (2022) 2…
