9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 132 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Non verification of reason for filing the second valuation report by assessee - AO did not apply his mind so as to properly verify and examine the two valuation reports submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order relying upon the valuation report in which the fair market value of the building cost of the property is shown at ₹ 1,02,61,710/- - HELD THAT - We have carefully perused the valuation report placed on record in the form of paper book. Undoubtedly the valuation report dated 15.12.2012 has valued the property as on 15.12.2012 whereas the assessment year under consideration is A.Y.2010-11 relevant to F.Y.2009-10. As the construction had completed on 31.03.2010 the assessee correctly got the second valuation report dated 15.12.2012 valuing the property as on 31.03.2010. These facts were very much available during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings itself and also before the Pr. CIT for proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. We find that the AO has correctly accepted the correct valuation report and completed the assessment. As seen from the assessment order that the AO had made enquiries in respect of the cost of construction and it cannot be said that no query was raised by the AO in respect of the cost of construction. In our considered opinion it is not open to enquire in case of inadequate enquiry. Infact in the case in hand the facts clearly show that adequate enquiries were made by the AO which were duly replied by the assessee. We find that the AO has taken one of the plausible view and the Pr. CIT cannot substitute his view with that of the AO - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessment order dated 31.03.2010 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) inquiry into the valuation reports submitted by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263: The appellant challenged the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (Pr. CIT) assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Pr. CIT initiated revision proceedings on the grounds that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to discrepancies in the valuation of the construction cost of the property. 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order: The Pr. CIT observed that the AO adopted a lower construction cost of ?1,23,82,385/- based on a second valuation report, while the initial valuation report indicated a cost of ?1,82,43,000/-. The Pr. CIT concluded that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest as it resulted in a lower taxable income by ?79,72,073/-. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. 3. Adequacy of AO's Inquiry: During the proceedings, the assessee justified the second valuation report, which correctly valued the property as of 31.03.2010, the relevant financial year. The AO accepted this report during the scrutiny assessment. However, the Pr. CIT contended that the AO failed to properly verify and examine both valuation reports. The Pr. CIT concluded that the AO did not apply his mind adequately, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal considered the legal standards for invoking Section 263, emphasizing that the Commissioner must establish that the AO's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that if the AO has taken one of the possible views after due inquiry, the Commissioner cannot substitute his opinion for that of the AO. The Tribunal referenced several judicial decisions, including those from the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, which support the principle that mere disagreement with the AO's view does not justify revision under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made adequate inquiries and accepted the second valuation report, which correctly reflected the property's value as of 31.03.2010. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, as the AO had taken a plausible view based on the facts and inquiries made. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order dated 31.03.2015 and restored the AO's assessment order dated 31.03.2010. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 03.02.2021.
|
