9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O, it was submitted by the assessee that the sale price is ₹ 6,81,69,559/- less cost price is at ₹ 1,12,83,619/- and profit on sale of land is at ₹ 5,68,85,940/- and the same is offered for taxation and therefore, the provisions of s.43CA of the Act will not apply. Exemption u/s. 54F - In this case, the A.O has completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. The same was taken up by the Ld. PCIT for examination u/s. 263 of the Act and found that the A.O has not examined in respect of business profits on sale of land at Nallur, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He has also pointed out that the claim of assessee u/s. 54F of the Act is fully allowed, where only 50% has to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to await the opportunity before the Assessing Officer in set aside proceedings. 4. The Assessing Officer took up the reassessment and without verifying the endorsement on the registered land document as to whether any excess stamp duty was collected, obtained information on alleged guideline value unilaterally from the SRO and made huge additions without opportunity to the appellant, vide order dated 30/12/2019. 5. On receipt of the consequential order, the appellant was legally advised that an appeal against the same may not favour the petitioner since no appeal consequent to a CIT's direction under section 263 can be decided by the first appellate authority contrary to the directions if it travel into the merits of the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 11.The Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to condone the delay of 2-52)days in filing the appeal against order under section 263 dated 22/3/2019, by admitting the appeal on record and disposing the case on merits of the issues involved. 3. From the above, it is clear that there is a delay in filing of the appeal on the basis of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. In our opinion, in the affidavit the assessee is able to explain that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter PCIT ) while exercising the powers conferred on him by s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the flat and sale agreement dated 30.10.2012 shows that the flat has been jointly allotted. The A.O ought to have considered only 50% of investment amount as recorded in the ledger for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The excess exemption allowed u/s. 54F of the Act has rendered the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. On this ground, the assessee has submitted that the amount has entirely paid by the assessee but the assessee being an old aged woman for precautionary measure her daughter Navita Bihani name was added in the agreement. 7. The Ld. PCIT after considering the explanation of the assessee, he came to the conclusion that the A.O has not examined profit on sale of land at Nallur declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
