9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 30th Sept., 2004 but the period of appeal under s. 260A having not expired, it is open for the Revenue to rely on the provisions of s. 142A on the ground that it would apply to the present case because the assessment has not become final and conclusive. 2. The necessary facts are, that the assessee filed return for the two assessment years on 17th July, 1995 and 20th July, 1995 respectively, along with the requisite information. However, no action was taken under s. 143(1)(a), as it then existed. Obviously, the time permissible for taking action under s. 143(1)(a) had expired. It appears that the assessment for the earlier year, being 1993-94 was also completed. It is only after the expiry of the time permissible for issuance of not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. 147 and 148, culminating into the impugned order of the Tribunal, should also be taken to be the continuation of the original assessment proceedings, with the result, that even for the purpose of s. 131(1)(d), the assessment proceedings were pending and, therefore, the report could very well be had. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the impugned orders of the learned CIT as well as the learned Tribunal, so also the relevant provisions of law. 6. As appears from the findings of the learned CIT, and the learned Tribunal, that the regular assessment under s. 143 has been taken to have been made, though the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. With these facts, it is not in dispute, that the reason to believe, entertained by the learned AO was only on the basis of the valuation report obtained from the DVO by the learned AO, which is dt. 16th Oct., 1996, and for that purpose, support is sought from the provisions of s. 131(1)(d), which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (SC) 489: (2003) 262 ITR 407(SC), wherein, the provisions of ss. 131(1), 133(6) and 142(2) were considered, and it was found, that this power does not include the power in the AO, to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. Even, the power under s. 142A was held to be not including the power to refer the matter to the Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
