ITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Smt. Kumud Ben J. Patel, Kolkata

MA 33/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2611 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

M.A. NO. 33/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S . 1026 /KOL./201 2) & M.A. NO.34/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S.1025/KOL./2012 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. NO. 33/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1026 /KOL . / 20 1 2) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 20 0 7 INCOME TAX OFFICER ,......................................... ............ .. .APP LIC ANT WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 001 - VS. - SMT. KUMUD BEN J. PATEL,................................................... . RESPONDENT 2, BRABOURNE ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 5, KOLKATA - 700 001 [PAN : AFTPP 7698 P] & M.A. NO. 34/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1025 /KOL./ 20 12) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER,................... .................. .... ............ .. .APP LIC ANT WAR D - 35(3), KOLKATA , 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 001 - VS. - SMT. LATA BEN PATEL,....................... ............................ . RESPONDENT 2, BRABOURNE ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 5, KOLKATA - 700 001 [PAN : AIMPP 4608 H] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI PRAKASH NATH BARN W AL , JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE APPLICANT SHRI GYAN RANJAN SAHA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DEC EM BER 0 5 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DEC EM BER 08 , 201 4 M.A. NO. 33/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S . 1026 /KOL./201 2) & M.A. NO.34/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S.1025/KOL./2012 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 2 OF 3 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : TH E S E ARE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1026 & 1025/KOL/2012 DATED 07.12.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2 . SHRI PRAKASH NATH BARN W AL, JC IT, SR. D.R., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI GYAN RANJAN SAHA, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D .R. THAT IN PARAS 7 & 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WRONG FACT IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TAKEN ANY REPORT FROM THE D.V.O. BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A REPORT FROM THE D.V.O. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL ON THIS ISSUE MAY BE RE - CALLED AS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4. IN REPLY, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ONLY TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN SO FAR AS THE DVO IS TO BE READ AS THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ONLY THE ERROR TO THIS EXTENT WAS LIABLE TO BE CORRECTED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE OF THE , DVO S REPORT CALLED FOR , WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , IN PARA 8, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 55A HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DVO S REPORT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED . ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO DVO S REPORT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS ONL Y A VALUATION REPORT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 8 M.A. NO. 33/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S . 1026 /KOL./201 2) & M.A. NO.34/KOL/2014 (IN I.T.A. NO S.1025/KOL./2012 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 3 OF 3 STANDS MODIFIED WHEREBY THE SENTENCE A S IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 55A OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THE DVO S REPORT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED , STANDS MODIFIED AND SHALL READ AS I T IS NOTICED THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 55A OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6 . IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH DEC EM BER, 2014. SD/ - SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA GEORGE MATHAN ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKAT A, THE 08 TH D AY OF DEC EM B ER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 001 (2) SMT. KUMUD BEN J. PATEL,/ SMT. LATA BEN PATEL 2, BRABOURNE ROAD, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 5, KO LKATA - 700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.