9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s 263 for fresh assessment based on property purchase price discrepancy. Summary: The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order u/s 263 directing a fresh assessment due to discrepancies in the purchase price of office premises. The company's incorporation details, loss declaration, and assessment u/s 143(3) were outlined. The Commissioner assumed jurisdiction based on discrepancies in the purchase price compared to market value, lack of verification, and potential acquisition proceedings. The assessee's submissions highlighted price agreement, lack of comparative figures, and vendor's appreciation. The Commissioner found errors in price inquiry, invoking u/s 263 for proper verification and fresh assessment. During the hearing, the assessee argued against the Commissioner's order, citing discrepancies and subsequent assessments. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the initial fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper valuation and vendor verification. A subsequent assessment revised the property value, reducing the undisclosed income. The assessee contended that the revisional order should be vacated, citing jurisdictional issues and wide time gap between transactions. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and materials, concluding that the Commissioner's jurisdiction u/s 263 was unwarranted. No errors were found in the assessment, and the Assessing Officer had no basis for further investigation. The Tribunal highlighted the legal aspects and onus of proof for income additions, emphasizing the lack of clear material for additional expenditure. The Tribunal set aside the revisional order, restoring the original assessment. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the original assessment order was reinstated.
|
