2014 (11) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Kailash, New Delhi at Rs. 4,99,500/-. The AO referred the valuation of the plot to DVO, under section 55A((b)(ii). No report was received till the framing of the assessment order on 21.12.2010, which the AO mentions in the order. 4. The CIT received a proposal for revising the said assessment from the AO on 19.03.2012. It was pointed out that actually the property was sold for Rs. 80 lacs. The AO also informed the CIT that on receipt of report from DVO, it was seen that the valuation came to Rs. 1,20,93,200/- and valuation as on 01.04.1981 came at Rs. 3,34,500/-. The AO, therefore intimated, that based on these facts and figures, capital gain would require re-computation. 5. On this information received as a proposal from the AO, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT, an assessment order dated 29/11/2013 u/s 143 r w s 263 was passed, levying a huge demand of Rs. 20,22,300/-. (5) That I am an engineer by qualification and being a retired person was appearing in my own matters till that stage. (6) That faced with this huge demand, I realized that I would need professional help. To that purpose I approached Smt. Ritika Agarwal, CA LLB, (Advocate High Court). She advised me to file an appeal against the assessment order dated 29/11/2013 passed u/s 143(3) r w s 263. She further advised me to file an appeal albeit belatedly against the order u/s 263 dated 5/02/2013 as well, since it was the foundation of the assessment order dated 29/11/2013. (7) That based upon such profession....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the issue and we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others , reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes .... 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. 13. When we weigh these two aspects then the si....