Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Patna v. Gali Bagichi Wali, Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110 006
High Court
10 Mar 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Patna v. Gali Bagichi Wali, Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110 006
Date of order
10 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Patna v. Gali Bagichi Wali, Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110 006, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.” In the aforesaid view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.300 of 2007
======================================================
1.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna.
2.Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Patna
.... .... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Leelawanti, C/O Sri Vijay Kumar Malik 1/158,
Gali Bagichi Wali, Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110 006.
.... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Sr.S.C.
Mrs. A. Prasad, Jr.S.C. For the Respondent : Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)
11
10-03-2015
It is pointed out by learned counsels for the parties that
the issues involved herein are squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 26.02.2015 passed in M.A. No.301 of 2007, in which it was held as follows:
“It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellants. Even Section 142A speaks of the Assessing Officer making a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him for the purpose of assessment or re-assessment. Thus, the requirement of such reference being made during the course of assessment or re-assessment proceeding is not given up in the new Section 142A brought on the statute book with retrospective effect. Hence, despite Section 142A, the action of the Assessing Officer continues to be without jurisdiction, there being admittedly no assessment or re-assessment proceeding pending on the day he made the reference to the Valuation Officer.
PNM
U
We find no error in the order of the learned Tribunal nor any substantial question of law arising in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.”
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the present appeal is
also dismissed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
(Anjana Mishra, J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.