9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany is builder and developer. In the course of its business, Petitioner Company constructed and developed a multi storied building in Indore known as 'Chetak Chambers on the R.N.Marg. Construction of said building commenced in the year 1985 and was completed by March 1994. It is the case of the petitioner, that all expenses and receipts were shown in the returns of income as the Accounts Books of relevant accounting years from 1984-85 onwards and from time to time assessment orders were passed. It is an admitted position that to ascertain the cost of construction during its progress as on 31.3.1992, the then Assessing Officer had issued a commission under section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per report of District Valuation O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Notice basically on the ground that against the order of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.8.2000, Revenue had preferred an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act before this Court on 28.8.2001 and support of this contention respondents have replied upon the Notice of Appeal-Annexure R-1 filed along with the reply. Thus, according to implication proceedings were pending to justify issuance of commission under section.131(1(d) of the Act. 4. After having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that respondents have failed to show that any assessment proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer on May 22.2201, when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him." (Emphasis is added by us). 5. The above decision applies on all fours to the question posed for decision in this petition. As pointed above, to ascertain the cost of construction as on March 31,1992, the Assessing Officer sought on commission District Valuation Officer report and made certain additions in the cost of construction, which were deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and confirmed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Thus it is clear that no assessment proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer when Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax issued the commission. The Division Bench decision even answers the plea taken by respondents to justify issuance of commissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
