9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable with the Assessing Officer is to refer the matter to the DVO. In the present case, the Assessing Officer without complying with the requirements of law had simply accepted the valuation report as furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer not following the mandatory provisions of law would render the assessment order erroneous which is amenable to the jurisdiction u/s 263 Without delving into the issue whether the agricultural lands come within the purview of section 56(2)(vii)(b), suffice to hold that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case Mubarak Gafur Korabu [ 2019 (4) TMI 1877 - ITAT PUNE] and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Maheshwari [ 2021 (1) TMI 832 - ITAT JAIPUR] do not come to the rescue of the assessee. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. PCIT was justified in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by setting aside the assessment order. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed. - ITA No. 345/PUN/2021 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2022 - SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest of the revenue. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from business of logistic providers. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 30.10.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 91,24,850/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 14, Pune ( the Assessing Officer ) vide order dated 30.10.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) at total income of ₹ 1,00,06,600/- after making the addition of ₹ 8,81,750/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of purchase of land bearing Survey No.130, Mouza Lawa, P.H. No.4, Khate Kramank 99, Village Lawa, Tahsil- Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur. 4. Subsequently, on reviewing the assessment record, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous for the reason that the Assessing Officer had accepted the valuation report of the property situated at Survey No.130, Mouza Lawa, P.H. No.4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. The ld. PCIT further held that the Assessing Officer should have made reference to the DVO as stipulated under the provisions of section 50C, without accepting the valuation report furnished by the appellant. According to the ld. PCIT, this amounts to error in the assessment order amenable to jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with direction to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the revision order u/s 263, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue , inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order after due application of mind on the issue sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT. Without prejudice to this argument, it is contended that the land in question purchased by the assessee is agricultural land which does not come within the ambit of capital asset as defined under clause (d) of sub-section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He also submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an erroneous . Therefore, the issue which is required to be examined by us is whether the Assessing Officer carried out enquiry or verification on the issue of applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of purchase of lands situated at Survey No.130, Mouza Lawa, P.H. No.4, Khate Kramank 99, Village Lawa, Tahsil- Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur during the course of assessment proceedings or not?. In the present case, no doubt, the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of purchase of subject-lands, but merely accepted the valuation report furnished by the appellant without adhering to the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer without going into the correctness of the valuation report merely accepted the valuation report furnished by the appellant. When the assessee objects the value as per the stamp duty valuation purpose, the only option available with the Assessing Officer is to refer the matter to the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
