2002 (11) TMI 323 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order quashing assessment under IT Act, 1961, for assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95, and 1995-96. Dispute over cost of construction determined by Distt. Valuation Officer. Challenge on jurisdiction under section 148, limitation period for notices under section 143(2), and tax effect for appeals directed by Revenue.

Analysis:
The appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee were consolidated due to common issues. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The dispute arose from the cost of construction determined by the Distt. Valuation Officer for different assessment years, leading the AO to issue notices under section 148 for reassessment. The CIT(A) held that the notices under section 143(2) were beyond the limitation period, rendering the assessments illegal. The Revenue contested this decision, arguing that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 148, and there was no evidence of the assessee's letter regarding the original return being treated as a response to the notice.

The assessee argued that the jurisdiction under section 148 was assumed due to a change of opinion, which is impermissible. Additionally, the reference to the DVO under section 131(1)(d) was challenged as illegal since no proceedings were pending against the assessee at that time. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee's contentions regarding the limitation period for notices under section 143(2) and ruled in their favor. The Revenue's appeals were further contested on the grounds of tax effect, as the tax involved in each year was less than Rs. 1 lakh, making the appeals not maintainable as per CBDT instructions.

The ITAT concurred with the view that appeals with tax effects below the prescribed limit were not maintainable, as per CBDT instructions and previous decisions by various ITAT Benches and the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. Therefore, the appeals directed by the Revenue were dismissed. The cross objections by the assessee were also dismissed as they were not pressed. The ITAT upheld the rulings accordingly, dismissing both the appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee.