Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1085 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non-service of notice u/s.148 - HELD THAT:- As the assessee's mother had appeared before the A.O. and notice was served to her. The assessee's mother had had participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ground taken in the appeal regarding non-service of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act is dismissed. No notice u/s. 142(1) issued - CIT(A) had categorically held that notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act dated 18.01.2016 was issued to the assessee and in response to the above notice the assessee's mother appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was discussed. The categorical finding of the CIT(A) has not disproved by the assessee. Therefore, the ground taken with regard to non-service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act is also rejected. Capital gain computation - fair market value of the property is less than the guidance value - whether has erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C ? - It is settled position of law that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CITI [2017 (6) TMI 542 - ITAT DELHI] had held that the Assessing Officer has a bounden duty to educate the assessee regarding the possible reliefs available to him, and even in a case where no specific reference to the Valuation Officer was sought by the assessee, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer that such option was available to him. Thus restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to refer the issue to the DVO to arrive at the fair market value of the impugned property. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|