9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 657 - HC - Income TaxDetermination to the cost of the construction - case referred to departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) - HELD THAT - The order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous also on the ground that on the date when the appeals u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act are being decided some other view could be taken, if these appeals are taken as continuance of the assessment proceedings. We are unable to accept the plea that the appeal u/s 260A is continuance of the assessment proceedings within the meaning of the term used in the proviso to section 142A of the Income-tax Act and that the assessment does not stand finally concluded, on the order being passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the case in hand, the Tribunal applied the law as is existed on the date of decision. The Tribunal passed the order in the assessment proceedings on 6-7-2004, i.e., much before the cut-off date 30-9-2004, date prescribed under the proviso. That being so, the appeals do not raise any substantial question of law to be decided by the High Court. The appeals are devoid of force, hence dismissed. The aforesaid appeals are dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessing Officer's power to refer the value point to the District Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: 1. Assessing Officer's Power to Refer to District Valuation Officer: The case involved an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessing Officer's power to refer the value point to the District Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer had referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer for assessing the cost of construction for the assessment year 1998-99. The appellate authority, relying on relevant judgments, held that the Assessing Officer did not have the power to make such a reference. The Tribunal upheld this finding, leading to the appeal before the High Court. 2. Interpretation of Section 142A and its Proviso: The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the amended provision of section 142A, which allows for the reference to the District Valuation Officer. However, the respondent pointed out the proviso to section 142A, which states that the section does not apply to assessments made on or before 30-9-2004, unless a reassessment is required under section 153A. The appellant contended that the appeal under section 260A should be considered a continuation of the assessment proceedings, thus falling outside the proviso's scope. 3. High Court's Jurisdiction under Section 260A: The High Court clarified that an appeal under section 260A is permissible only when it involves a substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that it does not reevaluate facts or evidence unless the Tribunal's findings are deemed perverse. In this case, the Tribunal's order was found to be in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the decision. The High Court concluded that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law, and therefore, they were dismissed. 4. Finality of Assessment Proceedings: The High Court rejected the argument that the appeal under section 260A should be considered a continuation of the assessment proceedings, as the Tribunal had already passed its order before the cut-off date of 30-9-2004. Since the Tribunal applied the law existing at the time of its decision, the High Court found no substantial question of law to address. Consequently, the appeals were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under section 260A and the importance of assessing the legal framework at the time of the Tribunal's decision.
|
