9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me- Tax-I, Indore, u/s. 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. 1(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 in the appellant's case without considering the material fact that the Assessment Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. (b). That, the learned CIT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in assuming the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without considering the material fact that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant had brought on record all the materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich resulted into the order being erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon as to why the assessment so framed may not be revised. The basis of the issuing notice was that during the assessment year 2010-11 the assessee had sold 8.683 hectare land situated at village Gokanya on 21.08.2009 for Rs. 4,50,55,500/-. The land was purchased on 06.09.2008 for the purchase consideration of Rs. 69,71,440/- and registry expenses of Rs. 6,74,158/-. Thus, the total cost of land was worked out at Rs. 76,45,598/- and long term capital gain was worked out at Rs. 3,74,09,902/-. The assessee company claimed this profit as exempt on the plea that the agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... response to the query of the Bench. The contentions thereof are as under: This has a reference to the hearing in the case of the captioned appellant had by Your Honours on 20-11-2018. During the course of the hearing, it was submitted by the undersigned that due to clerical error, entire purchase cost of the agricultural land, admeasuring 16.782 hectares got adjusted against the partial sale of 8.099 hectares of land sold in the earlier fmancial year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. It was submitted that due to such clerical error, value of the unsold land at Rs. 76,45,598/-, which ought to have been shown in the balance sheet as of31-03-2009, had got escaped to be shown as such. Upon making such argument, this Hon'ble Bench specifically so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of two notices which are placed on record at page no. 35 &40 of the Paper Book. It is also being claimed by the appellant that the full details along with the documentary evidences were duly furnished by the appellant vide its letters which are placed at page no. 52 to 55 &68 to 72 of the Paper Book. It was also demonstrated before the Hon'ble Bench that the AO after making necessary verification, had found the claim of the appellant as genuine and a specific finding to this effect was given by him at para (2) of his Assessment Order. The Hon'ble Bench then wanted to know about the treatment of the unsold agricultural land in the balance sheet for the earlier year. It was submitted that due to clerical error, the entire value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-2013 [kindly refer PB Page No. 53]. Further, a revised working of the gain for the A.Y. 2009-10 was also filed before the Id. AO. A copy of the same is also placed at page no. 84 of our Paper Book In sum and substance, it is humbly submitted that during the course of the original assessment proceedings, all the relevant issues were duly discussed by the ld. AO, which inter alia, includes the issue of Rs. 76,45,598/- as raised by the Hon'ble Bench. In these circumstances, it is once again prayed that the Order so passed by the ld. CIT under s.263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. 4. Ld. CIT-DR opposed the submissions and supported the order of the authority below. He submitted that the AO in the original assessment proceeding gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stock in trade as the assessee wanted to establish a water park. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention of the representatives of the parties. We are unable to accept this contention that assessing officer had raised a specific query as to why the assessee has treated sale consideration as exempt. The Ld. CIT has also not dealt with the contention that the assessee wanted to establish a water park. Under these facts, we deem it proper to modify the direction of the Ld. CIT and direct the A.O. to make enquiry, whether the assessee had made any efforts to establish a water park on the land in question. Further, the A.O. would also consider contention of the assessee that there was a typographical error in the accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
