TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007 has been received on 28.03.2014, and the same could not be filed in time as we were advised by our authorised representative that we have received the relief by learned CIT(A) and therefore no further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was required. However, now, it has been noticed that only part relief was granted by the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the appellate order passed by CIT(A) needs to be challenged further before the Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore, the appeal could be filed on 21/11/2017 with the delay of 1274 days as the appeal was due for filing on 27.05.2014 and instead of that the same has been filed on 21/11/2017 The delay in filing of the appeal may please be condoned and the appeal may please be considered." 2.1 Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the department initiated recovery proceedings to recover the tax due from the assessee and accordingly collected. Meanwhile, assessee approached the present AR to represent the cases. Ld. AR after study advised the assessee that the whole assessment was not maintainable and the earlier AR has misguided and mis-represented the case and not approached the case technically. With the advise of the present AR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 addressed to the TRO requesting for adjournment. The letter was signed by the Director of the company. The assessee requested for further adjournment to the TRO vide letter dated: 22.02.2017 signed by its Director. Further summons under Rule 83 of the Second Schedule was issued to the assessee by the TRO-1/ Hyderabod, on 25.05.2017. The assessee responded to the summons vide letter dated: 08.6.2017 and submitted details requisitioned. The assessee cannot claim ignorance of the effect of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as the reason for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The facts discussed show that, that the reason adduced by the assessee for delay in filing appeal by 1274 days (appeal filed on 27.11.2017) is not credible and acceptable. 2.3 It is inconceivable that an assessee company, would rely on the version of its alleged Authorised Representative that it has got relief from the Ld. CIT (A) on its appeal and remain oblivious to the fact that, only partial relief has been granted to it by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), evident from the appellate order, consequential order passed to the appellate order received by the assessee on 12.11.2015 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiju and others, [1987]167 ITR 471, has held as below: "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. 4. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the AO has not recorded any reference to such evaluation by DVO. On subsequent receipt of Valuation Report from the Departmental Valuation Officer, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening of the assessment on 13/12/2011. The reassessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the AO added the difference between the value determined in valuation report and the value accounted for in books of account. It is pertinent to mention with reference to property at Roorkee the addition was made in all the three years - A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 a 2008-09. With reference to property at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad, the addition was made only in A.Y.2006-07. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and granted relief on valuation of property at Hyderabad. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee as well as revenue raised grounds against the order of CIT(A). Let us first deal with the assessee's appeal. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted by way of three alternate submissions on validity of the reassessment, which are: a) AO cannot refer to DVO without rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of accounts of the assessee before making reference under Section 142A for valuation. The Ld. CIT (A) at Paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the appellate order on Page 4 has relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and others (2013) 356 ITR 74. The Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Latha vs. ITAT (2009) 318 ITR 44 wherein it has been held that in a case where the Assessing Officer referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, rejection of books of accounts is implied. The Ld. CIT (A) has further held at Para 5.5 that, there is no pre-requisite that the Assessing Officer should reject the books of accounts before making the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Even otherwise, the very fact that reference to the DVO has been made implies that AO had rejected the books of accounts. 4.4 During the course of appellate proceedings all the details submitted by the appellant during appeal proceedings were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO also sent her remand report dated: 11.3.2014 and such remand report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has categorically mentioned in his Valuation Report that, the assessee had also submitted the Valuation Report and that the inspection of the property was carried out by his office on 20.4.2010 in the presence of Shri N. L. Reddy, MD of the assessee company. 5.3 Therefore, the assessee's contention that the estimate of the Valuation Officer was incorrect is not supported by facts of the case. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in disregarding the findings of the Valuation Officer in respect of second floor of the Building, holding that, Rs. 13,82,826/- does not pertain to the AY: 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the same shall not be considered by the AO for the purpose of section 69. It has already been submitted above that, the departmental valuation officer had estimated the cost of construction of the building which includes the second floor on the basis of the investment details submitted by the assessee. The Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction of the property during the stated financial years, after carrying in out an inspection of the property which was carried out in the presence of the MD of the company. 5.4 In the light of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The Valuation Officer has only valued the cost of construction of the property during the period mentioned in the Valuation Report, on physical inspection which understandably includes the renovation cost to the old building during the period. The Departmental Valuation Officer has nowhere mentioned in his Report that the alleged old building was in fact a new building constructed during the above period. He has only estimated the cost of construction in the buildings during the period mentioned in the Valuation Report. 7. In the light of the submissions made above it is humbly and respectfully submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee be dismissed and the order of the Assessing Officer restored." 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the original assessment was completed on 31/12/2008 and the order sheet for the assessment u/s 143(3) filed by the assessee, has no reference to valuation officer nor there is any reference to the non-satisfaction of the valuation or books submitted before the AO. The AO had referred the valuation to DVO on 17/11/2008. The DVO has issued notice for submission of requisite informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat, the assessee-firm is said to have been wound up in the year 1992 itself. 10. Though section 142A of the Act was amended in the year 2004 with retrospective effect from 1972, we find it difficult to sustain the exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer on the touch stone of that provision. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merits in the appeal." 9.2 Further, ld. DR relied on the case of Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Smt. Kiran Latha (supra) to submit that in a case where the AO referred for the cost of construction u/s 142A to the DVO, and made addition u/s 69, objection of books of account is implied. We do agree with the proposition but in the above cases, the facts were, the AO referred to the DVO during the assessment proceedings and assessee was confronted with the report during the assessment proceedings. But, in the given case, the books of account were accepted during assessment proceedings and assessments were also completed without even hint of any doubt on the figures submitted by the assessee. The assessee was never confronted with the valuation submitted and adopted by them in the books. Assessee came to know about the ref....