TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.03.2016 and 25.10.2016 passed by learned Dy. CIT, (Central-I), Bhopal ["Ld. AO"] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], the revenue has filed the captioned Appeals and the assessee has filed the captioned Cross Objections. These Appeals and Cross-objections involve identical issues and relate to the same assessee, therefore they are being disposed of by this single common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the returns of AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 filed by assessee-society were subjected to scrutiny assessments wherein the AO made additions of Rs. 8,68,80,857/- and 3,94,27,706/- respectively in those....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Ker) 181 ITR 299 that through the principal of res judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings but when a question of law or fact was decided in assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year and an identical question came up for consideration for a later year, tribunal was justified in placing reliance on earlier decision. In view of above discussion, it is held that reference made to the District Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act by the AO for valuation of hospital building was not legally valid. Ld. AO resorted to making reference u/s 142A to DVO without pointing out any defects in books of accounts and without even rejecting the books which is a sine qua non for making reference to DVO as held by Hon'ble Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant paras of the decision of apex court are: "3. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided the matter rightly in favour of the Assessee in as much as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without the books of account being rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived. 4. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal stands restored to the file. Accordingly, the Assessee succeeds." The assessee also relied upon Goodluck Automobile Pvt. Ltd. 359 ITR 306 (Guj), wherein it was held that the rejection of books of accounts should precede reference to DVO and, therefore, report of DVO cannot form the foundation for rejection of books of accounts. The Gujarat High Court held that once it was apparent from the records that while making the reference to DVO, the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account, then the reference made to DVO was not in consonance with the provisions of law and hence such reference was invalid. With these submissions, Ld. AR argued that w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee" Learned Representatives fairly admitted that the latest version of sub-section (2), as reproduced above, which empowers the assessing authority to make reference to DVO without rejecting books of accounts, is effective from 01.10.2014 and not retrospectively. The effect of this legislative wisdom, as accepted by the learned representatives, is that the Assessing Officer was precluded from referring any matter to the DVO without the books of accounts being rejected by him and it is only after 01.10.2014 that sub-section (2) of section 142A empowers the Assessing Officer to make reference without rejecting bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema (supra). Respectfully, following the same, we are inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss both of the appeals of revenue. Ordered accordingly. Assessee's Cross-Objections: 10. The assessee has filed Cross-Objections. The main contention of assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating Ground No. 5 to 12 of both years (and also Ground No. 15 of AY 2014-15) of the first-appeal raised by assessee before him, even though the CIT(A) has allowed preliminary Ground No. 2 & 4 favour of assessee. Ld. AR referred Para No. 10 and 11 of the order of CIT(A) where the CIT(A) has done so: "10. It is, therefore, held that reference to the valuation of....