Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Kolkata-11, Kolkata v. M/S. Estate Of Late Lai Yunhsain Liu, Aop

ITA/129/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOLKATA-11, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. ESTATE OF LATE LAI YUNHSAIN LIU, AOP Appearance:Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. Malay Dhar, Adv.. . for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 26[th] September, 2022. The Court: This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated 29[th] November,2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench,Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.984/Kol/2018 for theassessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law: i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the tribunal has properly appreciatedthe purport and scope of section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ?the case, the tribunal has properly appreciatedthe purport and scope of section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the tribunal was justified in holdingthat the reopening of assessment under section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not valid ?the case, the tribunal was justified in holdingthat the reopening of assessment under section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not valid ? We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Malay Dhar, learnedadvocate for the respondent/assessment.The leading issue involved in the instant case iswhether there were any assessment or re-assessment proceedingspending at the relevant point of time when the assessingofficer referred the valuation aspect to the District ValuationOfficer (DVO). It is not disputed by the revenue that on thedate of reference to the DVO there was no assessment orreassessment proceedings pending. If such be the case, thereference is bad in law. The learned tribunal had rightlynoted the decision of this Court in Kajaria Investments &Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 250 ITR 619 (Cal.).Further, the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Taxvs. Umiya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. reported in (2009) 314ITR 272 (Guj.) also lays down the same principle. The learnedtribunal rightly took note of the legal position and dismissedthe appeal filed by the revenue. Thus, we find that the order passed by the learnedtribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, theappeal (ITA/129/2019) is dismissed and the substantialquestions of law are answered against the revenue. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) A/s./S.Das.