TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conceived since agreement of sale was entered prior to applicability of the provision itself by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15. iv. That the appellant reserves the right to raise additional grounds." 2. First, we take up ITA No. 690/Kol/2023 in which the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2015-16 by declaring income of Rs. 16,38,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS followed by notices issued u/s 143(3) and 142(1) of the Act and in compliance to the notices, the ld. AR appeared before the AO from time to time. The ld. AO while framing the assessment proceeding observed that assessee firm had sold 31 numbers of flat/shops to different customers amounting to Rs. 4,78,23,369/-. However as per sale deed the value of property in question determined by the stamp duty authority was Rs. 6,52,96,309/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO found that difference of Rs. 1,74,72,940/- was under assessed in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AO after receiving the necessary objection from the assessee in this context reference was made to Departmental Valuation Officer for determination of the fair market value of property on 07.11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case the suo moto transfer of the case from the AO to ACIT has no legal stand. Therefore, he prayed before the bench to set aside the order passed by the authorities below on the legal issue itself. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that in the present case the jurisdiction of assessee was with ITO, Ward-42(3), Murshidabad by virtue of PAN jurisdiction and for this reason return of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 featured in the list of CASS of ITO, Ward-42(3), Murshidabad for selection of scrutiny. He further stated that section 143(2) states about issuance of notice by assessing officer and not by ITO or ACIT. It is also stated that no notice u/s 143(2) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 6 months from the end of the F.Y. in which return was furnished. In present case of the assessee, the notice u/s 143(2) had to be served on the assessee on 30.09.2019 by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. In present case, notice u/s 143(2) was served on 29.07.2023 by the ITO, Ward-42(3), Murshidabad. The scrutiny in the instant case had to be initiated by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within 30.09.2016 for the assessment year in question failing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee after completion of the Assessment. The Assessee has never questioned on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in the course of Assessment proceedings nor this ground was taken by him during the course of appeal proceedings before the CIT(A).Hence the ground of appeal raised now may kindly be dismissed. In this context, reference may kindly be made to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT(Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology | (2023) 151 taxmann.com.434 (SC)/(2023)293 taxmann 493(SC)/(2023) 454 ITR 582(SC) dated 01-05-2023 - wherein the Hon'ble High Court set aside the notice issued under section 143(2) in case of Assessee on the ground that jurisdiction Officer had not adjudicated upon returns as jurisdiction had been changed after returns were filed, since records revealed that Assessee had participated pursuant to notice issued u/s 142(1) and had not questioned jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such case order of the High Court could not be sustained copy of the order is enclosed herewith for kind reference enclosed as Annexure A". 6. We after considering the submission of the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rival submission of the parties and going through the facts of the cases and also considering the documents furnished by the AR of the assessee. We find that in the instant case dispute is regarding the valuation of impugned sold out units as determined by the AO in terms of value determined by the stamp duty authority. However, when the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the DVO's report as available with him while passing the impugned order, we feel it necessary to remand back the instant issue to the file of AO with the direction to reconsider the valuation report furnished by DVO by applying proposition of law as laid down in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs ITO (supra) and also considering the documents as well as necessary submission made by the assessee before him and it is also directed that while doing so the ld. AO should give opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In terms of above, the instant issue is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Similarly in ITA No. 691/Kol/2023, the ld. AR prayed before the bench that DVO's report in the case of assessee was furnished beyond the limitation period as prescribed under the law, the....