OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
ITA 114/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69
iii. Avantha Realty Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 127 (Delhi).
iv. Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. ITO [2019] 101 taxman.com 93 (Pune-Trib).
v. CIT vs. Narinder Kr. Budhiraja [2015] 56 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi).
vi. Sri Pattabhiram vs. Income-tax Officer, Kakinada [2014] 45 taxmann.com 141. vii. CWT vs. Dr. H. Rahman, [1991] 55 taxman 408 (Allahabad).
Therefore
