Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (10) TMI 1025

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd purchase deed. The reply of the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has given all the details in response to DVO s calculation related to land and the indexation thereto. In fact, AO in reopening has categorically made finding and made addition to the extent of Rs.18,63,319/- on account of short working of LTCG. DVO s report was authenticated and accepted by the Revenue. This is not a case of lack of enquiry or no enquiry at all. Besides this, the PCIT has given his own observation which amounts to review and change of opinion or review while exercising Section 263 is not permitted by the Income Tax Statute. Thus, the PCIT was not right in exercising Section 263 in assessee s case. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te Shri Madansinhji Daulatsinhji Jadeja. After death of assessee s father she received the said land which has been sold for developing the plots of land (total 467 plots were developed out of which 131 were sold for Rs.3,07,55,000/-). As the sale value was less than the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority, the assessee was asked by the Assessing officer to show cause as to why the deemed value as per Stamp Valuation Authorities should not be considered as sale value. The case was subsequently referred to DVO. The DVO determined the value of property at Rs.3,24,32,214/- as sale value. Thus, the addition of Rs.18,63,319/- was made on account of such capital gain not offered for tax. The PCIT held that post valuation report determin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld. AR further submitted that the PCIT has misread the valuation report as the prior and subsequent years rate were properly taken while determining the present areas in respect of LTCTG and land valuation by the DVO. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings is only a query but not the actual enquiry and thus, the Assessing Officer has not taken into account the land valuation properly. The Ld. DR further submitted that the wrong calculation of the assessee has not been verified by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing officer has not referred the case of the assessee to the DVO for review. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates