COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRICHY Vs. S KALAIVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 989/mds/2006 dated 24. 11. 2006, raising the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the reassessment made under Section 147 is bad and deleting the addition of Rs. 1 ,46,790 /-towards unexplained investment in the construction of a commercial complex at simco Meters Road Trichy is proper? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that Section 142a is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the assessment year 1996-97 especially when Section 142a was inserted by the Finance Act 2004 with retrospective effect from 15. 11. 1972?

(2.) 1. The revenue is the appellant. The assessee filed her returns on 26. 2. 1999, which was processed under Section 143 (3) of the Act along with the returns for the assessment year 1997-98, considering the investment in building. As the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed that unexplained investment in the construction of commercial complex at Simco Meter Road, trichy had to be assessed in the ratio of 1:3 for the assessment year 1996-97 and 1997-98, fixing the amount for the assessment year 1996-97, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for reassessment. Pursuant to the same, the assessee filed returns on 28. 10. 2003 and thereafter, notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issue d. 2. 2. The assessee also filed a letter requesting to consider the order of the Income Tax Tribunal and that a miscellaneous petition filed before the Tribunal in respect of the above said order is pending. However, the unexplained investment was considered for the assessment year 1996-97 and added to the income returned. Hence, the assessee filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner. However, further appeal preferred before the Income Tax Tribunal was allowed on the ground that amendment to section 142a would not apply, as the order passed on 31. 12. 2003 in the assessee's own case had become final. Hence, the above appeal.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned standing counsel for the revenue contends that the revenue has already filed a miscellaneous petition against the order dated 31. 12. 2003 and the same is pending and therefore, the said order had not become final and concluded on or before 30. 9. 2004. Unfortunately, the learned standing counsel is not in a position to place the correct facts as to the date of the filing of miscellaneous petition and whether the said miscellaneous petition is pending or disposed of as on date.