9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act is wrong, illegal and opposed to facts. 1.2 The CIT ought to have seen that the Order of Assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue warranting revision. 1.3 The CIT ought to have seen that the Return of Income had been picked up for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verification ofsources for the purchase of immovable property, which the Assessing Officer did; and as such the order of assessment does not suffer from any illegality. 1.4 The CIT erred in stating that there was lack of enquiry, when the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order u/s 263 clearly use the words "not properly enquired into". 2.1 The CIT went wrong in i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft received from his brother Shri. Lakshmanan and accepting the explanation for the balance sources of money for purchase of immovable property. 4. While the matter stood thus, the ld. PCIT, Madurai-2 on examination of the records found that the Assessing Officer had not enquired into issue of applicability of Section 50C of the Act in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee had purchased the immovable property for a consideration of I41,50,000/- against stamp duty value of the property of I77,19,000/-. Accordingly, issued show cause notice dated 26.10.2018 u/s.263 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, assessee had filed detailed explanation contending that provisions of Section 50C of the Act has no application in the hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd 84 DTR 0045. 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 156. 10 CIT vs. PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 11 Jai Commercial Co. Ltd vs. JCIT, 76 ITR 65 and 12 Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd vs. DCIT, 55 ITD 24''. Thus, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. PCIT ought not have exercised the power of revision in the instant case. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had not looked into the issue of applicability of provisions of Section 56 (2) (vii)(b) of the Act, therefore the ld. PCIT wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
