COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S/ HOTEL SAKLANI

ITA/180/2005

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun against M/s Hotel Saklani concerning a dispute over the valuation of property for the assessment year 1987-88. The initial assessment by the Assessing Officer was contested by the assessee, leading to a series of appeals. The ITAT had earlier allowed the assessee's appeal, which was based on the valuation of the property being significantly lower than assessed. After the ITAT's decision, Section 142A was introduced, which allowed for estimates by a Valuation Officer in certain cases. However, this section was not applicable to assessments that had become final before September 30, 2004, which included the present case. The revenue's application for rectification based on this new section was rejected by the ITAT, leading to the present appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 730313 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Amiya Bala Paul Vs. CIT 262 ITR 407
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JITENDRA CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PITAMBER MAULEKHI
• Keywords: Assessment; Final assessment; Income Tax; Rectification; Valuation Officer
• Section: 148; 153A; 69; 69B; 69A; 260A; 142A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.180 OF 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ..…..Appellant Versus M/s Hotel Saklani, Dehradun …….Respondent Dated: 8th August, 2008 Sri Pitamber Maulekhi, Advocate for the appellant/revenue. Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. P.C.Pant (J), Oral This appeal, preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.2.2005 passed in Misc. Application No.7/Del/2005 by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, New Delhi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The question of law involved in this appeal is as under:- “Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the application for rectification moved by the revenue/appellant, of its order dated 22.3.2004 passed in ITA No.3299-3302/Del/2001, misinterpreting proviso to section 142A of Income Tax Act, 1961, and by holding that assessment had become final” 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee/ respondent-M/s Hotel Saklani, 17 Rajpur Road, Dehradun was served with the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) by the Assessing Officer in the year 1993. In response to said notice assessee submitted its return showing his income-Nil. The matter pertains to the assessment year of 1987-88. During that year assessee had shown an investment of Rs.9,70,603/- for construction of basement and shops in his hotel. Valuation of the property known as “Hotel Saklani” was shown in the return as Rs.32,74,151/-. The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 28.03.1995 assessed the investment after hearing the assessee at Rs.10,70,604/-. In other words, difference in the valuation was assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- only. The assessee challenged the assessment order before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as CIT(A)). Said appeal was registered as Appeal No.92/DDN/95- 96 and dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2001 by CIT(A). On further appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ITAT), filed by the assessee, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2004. 5. After the order was passed by ITAT on 22.03.2004, a new section i.e. Section 142A of the Act, was inserted in Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under:- “142A Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases- (1) For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of dealing with such reference, have all the powers that he has under section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) On the receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date, except in cases where a reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Explanation-In this section, “Valuation Officer” has the same meaning as in the clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)” 6. Proviso to aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that the power given under section 142A of the Act is to be exercised in respect of the assessments, which were not final by 30th of September, 2004. In other words, the provision is not to be applied retrospectively, except in the cases where assessment has not become by said date or where reassessment is required to be made in accordance with provisions of Section 153A of the Act. Section 153A of the Act provides for assessment in case of search or requisition. Admittedly it is not a case either of search or of requisition. That being, so in the present case, the estimate by Valuation Officer cannot be sought as the assessment had already got finalized on 22.03.2004 (i.e. before 30.9.2004) when ITAT decided the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue/appellant submitted that ITAT has erred in law in rejecting the application for rectification moved by it before said authority. It is further pointed out that section 142A of the Act, was made applicable w.e.f. 15.11.1972. The object of making section 142A of the Act applicable w.e.f. 15.11.1972 appears to be to overcome the difficulty faced by the departmental authorities in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Amiya Bala Paul Vs. CIT 262 ITR 407. But simultaneously it is to be kept in mind that the proviso contained in section 142A of the Act excludes those assessments from the purview of the section which were concluded before 30th September, 2004. Had the revenue filed appeal in the High Court against the order passed by ITAT on 22.03.2004, it could have been said that the assessment has yet not finalized. But it is not disputed that the revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 22.03.2004 passed by ITAT, as such the same became final. In such circumstances it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error of law in rejecting the application for rectification moved by the revenue/appellant particularly when no mistake is shown to have been committed. 8. For the reasons as discussed above, we are of the view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Question of law stands answered accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C.Pant, J.) 8.08.2008 RG "