9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n after the re-opening of the assessment it was found that there was compliance of section 50C - There was no issue relating to the determination of the long term capital gain and the exemption u/s 54F -the language of Section 263 provides that the Commissioner may call far and examine the record - The word "examine the record" means the material available on record at the time of assessment and not the material which has been obtained subsequent to the assessment order, the said material cannot be said to be part of the record and cannot be examined for invoking the provision section 263 - reliance placed on the valuation report dated 26.06.2009 for invoking the provision of section 263 is also not justified – thus, there was no error in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2003-2004 disclosing the income of Rs. 28, 500/-. The said return has been accepted by the assessee authority. However, the notice has been issued under section 147 to re-open under section 148 on the ground that assessee has sold a portion of House No. 11, Moti Lal Nehru Road, Allahabad on 45,00,000/- while the stamp duty has been paid on the amount of Rs. 66,03,680/- and therefore the provision of Section 263 is applicable. The assessee participated in the proceeding and filed the reply on a consideration of the reply the assessing authority has accepted the income disclosed in the return vide order 26.03.2008. It has been observed that the provision of Section 50 -C has been complied with. Later on the notice under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scussion has been made with regard to the detailed report of the DVO. The contention of the assessee that the valuation was made by the DVO ex-parte has not been rebutted. It is also noticed that the learned CIT asked the comments of the DVO on the comments of Registered/Approved Valuer of the assessee but DVO did not comment, which is evident from para 8 and 9 of the impugned order. The learned CIT in para 12 of the impugned order, stated that the reply of the assessee was inadequate and far from being convincing. However, he had not thrown any light how and what manner the reply of the assessee was inadequate or far from being convincing. He simply directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment de novo. However, nothing is broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 263 is dated 26.03.2008 relying upon the valuation report dated 26.06.2009 which was not part of the record when the assessment order was passed on 26th March 2008. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that there is nothing on record to substantiate how the assessment order passed by the assessing authority was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We have considered the rival submissions and we do not find any error in the impugned order. The Tribunal is right in saying that the CIT in its order has referred the contents of the notice and details relating to the valuation of the property and the reply of the assessee and the valuation report dated 26.06.2009 and has not given any reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
