9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uture Corporate Resources Ltd [ 2021 (10) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In the case under consideration the AO has adopted one of the legally possible view qua Unsold Flats shown as closing stock. Therefore, the Assessment Order is not erroneous qua unsold flats shown as Stock. TDS and Interest on TDS - AR accepted that there was no inquiry by the AO on the issue of TDS and interest on TDS. Accordingly we hold that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue with reference to the issue of TDS as AO failed to carry out necessary verification and on the issue of Interest on TDS. Accordingly the, order u/s. 263 is upheld qua TDS claim and Interest on TDS. Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /08/2018 electronically and duly served upon the assessee through this office mail id. Further, a Notice u/s. 142(1) of the income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 02/04/2019 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer(AO) passed assessment order under section 143(3) at total income of Rs. 1,84,10,230/-, without making any addition. The ld.Pr.CIT invoked section 263 of the Act. Findings and Analysis: 3. In this case the Ld.Pr.CIT has invoked provisions of section 263 on following grounds : (i) Assessee claimed TDS of Rs. 10,34,119/- however, corresponding income has not been offered for tax, AO has not verified this issue. (ii) Interest on TDS is not an allowable expenses however the AO has not verified the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. This is A.Y. 2017-18. At that point of time, for A.Y. 2017-18, there were two views on taxability of these ready flats which have been shown as Stock in trade. The AO took a view of not taxing it under the head Income from House property. When there are two legally possible views and AO adopts one of them, the Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous on this ground. 7. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kumar Properties and Real Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 190 ITD 212 vide the order dated 28/04/2021 authored by the Hon ble Vice President, R.S. Syal has held as under: Quote, 11. The authorities below have canvassed a view that the annual letting value of flats/bungalows is income chargeable to tax as 'Income from house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained from the competent authority, shall be taken to be nil.' 13. A close scrutiny of the provision inducted by the Finance Act, 2017, transpires that where a property is held as stock-in-trade which is not let out during the year, its annual value for a period of one year, which was later enhanced by the Finance Act, 2019 to two years, from the end of the financial year in which the completion certificate is received, shall be taken as Nil. The amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from. 7.3 The Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : Quote, 8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Unquote. 7.4 The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Future Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the position is two views therefore were possible. Therefore, if one of the two possible views was taken by the Assessing Officer, the PCIT could not have exercised his powers under section 263 of the Act. 8. Unquote . 7.5 Thus, the principle of the law emanating from the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Hon ble Bombay High Court is that when two views are legally possible and Assessing Officer adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. In the case under consideration the AO has adopted one of the legally possible view qua Unsold Flats shown as closing stock. Therefore, the Assessment Order is not erroneous qua unsold flats shown as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
