Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (7) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that during the assessment proceedings the AO had directed the assessee in his notice issued u/s. 142 (1) to file details of investments made during the year, that the AO had also directed the assessee to explain as to why disallowance should not be made in respect of the income from house property where the assessee had declared the loss of ₹ 3, 00, 990/-(page 16 of PB). We find that the AO had made proper enquiries about the house property income and the loss claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. After considering the available material the AO had arrived at a definite conclusion. In our opinion, the assessment passed by the AO with regard to house property income and loss claimed by the assessee cannot be te .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilder, dated 27/03/2012, claiming that on basis of the said letter he had taken possession. The assessee also filed electricity bill in support of his claim that possession of the flat was taken by him. After considering the submission of the assessee, the CIT held that the letter of the builder did not indicate the posssession could be taken by the assessee, that the second paragraph of the letter clearly indicated that the occupancy certificate for the flat was not issued by the CIDCO, that the electricity bill showed nil consumption, that the actual position of the flat was not given to the assessee, that he was not eligible to claim the loss in respect of the said flat, that the failure on part of the AO to examine and disallow the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the order of the CIT and argued that the AO had not made necessary enquiry. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had purchased a residential unit, vide agreement dated 08/09/2011, for ₹ 1. 06 corrodes, that he had taken a loan of ₹ 90. 54 lakhs from a bank, that he had submitted the copies of agreement for purchase of the flat along with the loan agreement and the confirmations of the family members who had advanced loan to him , that during the assessment proceedings the AO had directed the assessee in his notice issued u/s. 142 (1) to file details of investments made during the year, that the AO had also directed the assessee to explain as to why disallowance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ering the peculiar effect and circumstances of the case under consideration, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act was against the mandate of the section. Here we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (supra) and same reads as under: A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In our opinion, the order passed by the AO about the house property and the treatment given by him to the interest expenditure was as per the provisions of the Act. There was no patent mistake in his order. He had taken a view which was most appropriate-no othe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates