TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and carrying on the business of catering in Mysore. In the impugned Assessment Year, assessee has not filed any return of income. Thereafter, on the basis of information from the Office of Registrar, the AO issued notice under section 148A of the Act to the assessee on 19.03.2022 wherein the AO has enquired with respect to the sale of immovable property worth Rs. 63 lakhs sold by the assessee. The assessee could not respond to this notice. Thereafter, the AO on 31.03.2022 passed an Order under section 148A(d) of the Act wherein the AO made certain observations regarding the sale of immovable property by the assessee as well as certain deposits alleged to have been mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed by the assessee with respect to the investments made in new house. The AO denied the exemption under section 54 of the Act but the ground that assessee has purchased two houses and hence not entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the Order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and filed a valuation report approved by the registered valuer in support of the expenses incurred on cost of improvement. Similarly, for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act, assessee has made submissions before the learned CIT(A) and pointed out that though assessee has purchased two separate houses but after removing the wall, the assessee has made this house as one unit and hence assessee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee has filed the return of income only after the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and that too belatedly, means not in the time prescribed by the AO in notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no error in the jurisdiction of the AO. So far as the argument of the assessee that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the AO is concerned, we observe that in this case the assessee has not filed return of income within 30 days from the date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and the assessee has filed the return of income after the issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat CIT(A) is not expert and cannot make comment upon the subjects which are technical in nature. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Industrial Esate vs. CIT reported in 237 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that when technical issues are involved then opinion of the technical people is required to be obtained before discarding any evidence. In the present case, the CIT(A) has discarded the report of the registered valuer without seeking counter comments of the Departmental Valuation Officer. Therefore, the matter requires fresh consideration at the end of the AO. However, the Counsel for the assessee prayed that instead of restoring the matter back to the file o....