9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M. M. Kumar J.- This appeal by the Revenue has been preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the "Act"), challenging the order dated June 6, 2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal"), Delhi Bench in I. T. A. No. 2091/Del/ 2005 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue has claimed that the following question of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak was only a change of opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak with the observation that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on March 31, 2005 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak did not accept the view of the Assessing Officer which was based on the report of the Departmental valuer which has quoted that the house was constructed during the year 1993-96. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, however, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction held that the construction of the residential house was completed only in March 2000 and the Assessing Officer has committed an error. 4. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, Rohtak while exercising revisional jurisdiction has not placed reliance on any evidence whatsoever whereas the order of the Assessing Officer is based on substantial evidence. The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, has been found to be bald and perverse. 5. It has further been pointed out that the view of the Assessing Officer is one possible view and the same cannot be substituted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, merely because another view could be possible. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at considerable length and find that these are pure findings of fact as to whether the house was constructed between 1993 and 1996. The Assessing Officer has placed firm reliance on the report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
