The Learned Tribunal, In Our View, Rightly Took Note Of The Decision Ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court In Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. Cit 262 Itr 407(Sc)And Held That The Ddit Did Not Have The Power To Make The Reference Tothe Dvo, Which Power He Acquired Only On 1[St] April, 2017 By Virtue Of

OD–6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/66/2023IA NO.GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATAVS.M/S. GURU NANAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 22[nd ]March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv..…for appellantMr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv.…for respondent. The Court : - We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel appearingfor the appellant and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms.Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhertha Das, Advocates on behalf of the respondent.There is a delay of 168 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we findsufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period oflimitation. Hence the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,is directed against an order dated 20.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T(SS).A Nos. 19 to 24/Kol/2020 and I.T. (SS)A Nos. 13to 18/Kol/2020 both relating to Assessment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2011-2012,2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law forconsideration:- i)WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the additionsmade in the Assessment Year 2008-2009 to Assessment Year 2009-2010and Assessment Year 2011-2012 to Assessment Year 2013-2014 onaccount of unexplained investments made under section 69 of the Act onthe basis of District Valuation Officer’s valuation report? The Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision in the case ofPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA-Vs- M/S. NARULAEDUCATIONAL TRUST in I.T(SS)A No. 42 to 47/Kol/2020 for the Assessment Years2008-2009 to 2013-2014 dated 5.2.2021. Against the said decision the revenuepreferred appeal before this Court in ITAT/35/2023 which was dismissed by judgmentdated 27.2.2023, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- “We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent. Though the order passed by the learned Tribunal is an elaborateorder, the legal issue involved in the case lies in a very narrow compass.The issue was as to whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer inall the assessment years based on the initial valuation report submitted bythe Valuation Officer pursuant to a reference made by theDDIT(Investigation), dated 11[th] July, 2014, was within jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal, in our view, rightly took note of the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul Vs. CIT 262 ITR 407(SC)and held that the DDIT did not have the power to make the reference tothe DVO, which power he acquired only on 1[st] April, 2017 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2017 under Section 132(9B) of the Act. Further, the learnedTribunal noted that neither the DVO filed the valuation report pursuant tothe Assessing Officer’s reference dated 22[nd] January, 2016 nor the DVOfiled the valuation report pursuant to the reference by the CIT(A) through theAssessing Officer by letter dated 29[th] January, 2019. Thus, the learned Tribunal noted that the addition has been madeonly on the basis of the initial valuation report dated 18[th] November, 2014,which was pursuant to the DDIT’s reference and on the said date he had nopower to call for such report.” In the light of the above settled legal position no ground has been madeout by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunaland the appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answeredagainst the revenue. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)