9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have left the issue at that and no further. Whether section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) would be applicable to the transaction or not should have been left to the result of enquiry to be conducted by the assessing officer and his decision after proper application of mind. However learned PCIT himself has assumed the role of, both, the assessing officer as well as DVO. This, in our view, is impermissible. Applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) has to be considered by reading the provision as a whole and in the context of various exceptions provided in the provisos to the said provision. This can be done through a proper and complete enquiry being done by the assessing officer. The assessing officer cannot act independently if he is circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the Act ) dated 09.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the assessment order ), as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reasons given by him for doing so are wrong, contrary to the facts of the case and against the provisions of law; 2. The Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that, where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO ), after conduct of due enquiry, has taken one view with which the Pr. CIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the property was purchased at a consideration above the prevailing sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. He further observed, the stamp duty value for the year under consideration was ₹ 2,70,300 per sq.mtr as on the date of registration. Applying the said rate, the value of the property would be ₹ 5.80 crores. Whereas, the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 5.02 crores. Thus, he observed, failure to adopt the appropriate market value / stamp duty value of the property has resulted in under assessment of income to the tune of ₹ 77,76,649/-. Being of the view that the assessing officer has accepted the returned income without examining this aspect and without making any enquiry, learned PCIT formed a prima facie view that the assessment framed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of ₹ 5,02,31,276/- at the prevailing market rate, whereas, the agreement was registered o 27-01-2015 when the prevailing ready reckoner value had increased to ₹ 6,09,15,500/-. Further, he submitted, assessee is merely a coowner of the property and all contributions towards the purchase value of the property were made by the first owner, Shri Shantilal Mehta. In this context, he drew our attention to the copy of sale agreement at page 22 of the paper book and the ledger account copy showing payment made by Shri Shantilal Mehta. He submitted, if at all any addition has to be made, it has to be at the hands of the first co-owner, who has contributed for purchase of the property. In support of such contention, he relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under section 143(2) of the Act, a copy of which is at page 1 of the paper book, reveals that the scope of scrutiny was to examine the purchase of property. In response to notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee filed its reply on 24-04-2017 furnishing the details of flat No.1004 purchased at Anchor Daewoo, Malabar Hill for a declared consideration of ₹ 135 lakhs. The assessee filed a further reply on 25-09-2017 furnishing the details of another property purchased being flat No.B-5102, Trump Tower, Worli. As per assessee s own admission in the said letter, the flat was purchased for a declared sale consideration of ₹ 5,02,31,276/-, whereas, on the date of registration of the property on 27-01-2015 sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainly made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, to that extent, learned PCIT was justified in exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order. 8. Having held so, we must observe, learned PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in making various other observations touching upon the merits of the issue. Firstly, learned PCIT was totally wrong in substituting his own valuation of the property in place of stamp duty value. In fact, the value adopted by learned PCIT is not backed by any evidence. Secondly, while adopting his own value learned PCIT has completely ignored the Government approved valuer s report furnished by the assessee. Thirdly, he has not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
