Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cit vs Om Prakash Bagadia on 18 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2005]144TAXMAN637(MP)
ORDER Sapre, J.
The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of ITA No. 60 of 2003, as both these appeals arise out of common order and secondly, appeals arise between the same parties.
2. This is an appeal filed by revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 27-2-2003, passed by I.T.A.T. in 1TA Nos. 484 & 485/IND./2002.
3. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for admission of appeal.
4. Heard Shri A.P. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that the appeal has no substance. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. The dispute relates to a question as to whether report of- D.V.O. could be relied upon by assessing officer for making assessment in question which was called by assessing officer, pursuant to order of commission issued under section 131(d) of the Act. According to Tribunal, firstly in the earlier assessment year cases, the Tribunal having held in favour of assessee that the report of D.V.O. could not have been taken ii i to account, the assessing officer and CIT (Appeals) were bound by the orders of' Tribunal for deciding the same issue arising in subsequent years. Secondly, the report of D.V.O. having been obtained beyond the period fixed in the commission issued, the same could not be relied on. We concur with both the findings. In any event, in view of recent decision Supreme Court in some what similar cases, wherein it is ruled that no commission under section 131(d) can be issued for calling report of D.V.O. by assessing officer, the impugned orders of Tribunal deciding the issue in favour of assessee does not call for any interference. In other words, it was rightly held that the orders passed by Tribunal in respect of same D.V.O. report for the earlier assessment orders should have been relied upon by assessing officer and the CIT (Appeals) to maintain judicial discipline and secondly, in the absence of any extension obtained, the report of D.V.O. beyond tile period fixed, could not be relied upon and lastly, in view of recent pronouncement of Supreme Court interpreting powers of assessing officer regarding issuance of commission under section 131(d) to D.V.O. the issue must be decided and rightly decided by Tribunal in favour of assessee.
7. In this view of the matter, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and hence, it is dismissed in limine.