- (1.)THIS is an appeal under Section 260a of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'act'), filed by the CIT, Bhopal, against the order dt. 9th May, 2000 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, in ITA No. 88/ind/1998.
(2.)THE facts briefly are that the respondent/assessee filed IT return for the asst. yr. 1994-95 on 29th July, 2004 in Ward-1, Ujjain, showing a loss of Rs. 2,77,300. The return was processed and an intimation dt. 17th Oct. , 1994 was sent to the respondent under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revised return of income on 31st Aug. , 1995 showing a total income of Rs. 33,650. In the revised return, the respondent disclosed income from capital gains from the land used for the construction of Bagria Towers, which he had not shown in the original return. In the original return, the respondent had claimed house-tax, but in the revised return he withdrew the said claim towards payment of house-tax as the same had not been paid. In the revised return, the value of Bagria Towers (land and structure) as on 31st March, 1994 was shown at Rs. 14,14,828. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice dt. 19th April, 1996 was issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a commission under Section 131 (1) (d) of the Act to the District Valuation Officer, Bhopal, for determination of cost of construction of Bagria Towers. On the basis of report of the District Valuation Officer, Bhopal, the AO determined the investment on the Bagria Towers during the previous year relevant to the year 1994-95 as Rs. 21,25,042 against the investment of Rs. 8,26,715 shown by the respondent. After giving an opportunity to the respondent, the AO made an addition of Rs. 12,98,328 on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act to the income of Rs. 33,646 shown in the revised return and determined the total income as Rs. 13,31,974.
(3.)AGGRIEVED, the respondent filed an appeal before the CIT (A) contending inter alia, that the original return for the asst. yr. 1994-95 was filed on 29th July, 1994 and an intimation was sent to the respondent under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act on 17th Oct. , 1994. Thereafter limitation under the proviso to Section 143 (2) of the Act for issue of notice in respect of original return expired on 31st July, 1995 and hence intimation dt. 17th Oct. , 1994 under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act became a final assessment order and the revised return that was filed on 31st Aug. , 1995 was not a valid return and the assessment made by the AO was a nullity. The respondent also contended before the CIT (A) that the reference to the District Valuation Officer, Bhopal, for determining the cost of construction of Bagria Towers was not a valid reference. The CIT (A) did not accept the aforesaid contentions of the respondent but accepted the contention of the respondent that no opportunity of hearing was given and restored the matter back to the AO to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent and make a fresh assessment.