Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jignesh Bhagwandas Patel

C/TAXAP/282/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 282 of 2019 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusJIGNESH BHAGWANDAS PATEL ========================================================== Appearance:MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 08/07/2019 ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Tax Appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in the ITA No. 83/AHD/2016/SRT dated 01.11.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to work out the cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 99/- per sq. mtr. As on 01.04.1981 even though the registered valuer has not given any comparable case of sale instance?the Hon'ble ITAT was right in upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to work out the cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 99/- per sq. mtr. As on 01.04.1981 even though the registered valuer has not given any comparable case of sale instance? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without considering the assessee's own letter datd 21.04.2014 stating that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to him?the Hon'ble ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without considering the assessee's own letter datd 21.04.2014 stating that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to him? We take notice of the fact that the appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the Revenue and in the said appeal cross-objections were filed by the assessee. The appeal preferred by the Revenue came to be dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee were also ordered to be dismissed. This Appeal has been filed in connection with the cross-objections which were filed by the assessee. Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, pointed out that no adverse orders have been passed in so far as the cross-objections of the assessee are concerned. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Raval, this Appeal would not survive. In view of the above, this Tax Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J)