9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Order is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, Order passed under Section 263 of the Act is liable to be set aside. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Hardik Vora, AR For the Revenue : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT (DR) ORDER PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-3 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 under Section 263 of the Act fir assessment year 2015-16 without giving proper opportunity of being heard is erroneous, contrary to law, equity, facts and circumstances of the present case and the material available on record. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the assessee had purchased three separate agricultural pieces of land for a total consideration of Rs. 37,70,200/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had only submitted the purchase deed in connection with the above agricultural properties and no other details and documentary evidences in respect of source of such investment was submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the PCIT was of the view that since the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the investment made by the assessee for purchase of various properties and source thereof and also had failed to analyze the applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, it is apparent and that the Assessment Order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to carry out denovo assessment after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the PCIT. 6. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 428 days in filing the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2010 itself by way of account payee cheques by purchasers, the PCIT erred in facts and in law in taking the Jantri value for Financial Year 2014-15. Accordingly, the very basis of initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act are on an incorrect understanding of facts of the assessee s case. Further, the aforesaid agreement was placed on record during the course of original assessment proceedings and, therefore, neither it is a case where inadequate enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer nor is it a case where there has been incorrect application of law by the Assessing Officer. Regarding source of investments, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page no.8 of the Paper Book and submitted that the assessee vide submission dated 24.11.2017 had submitted the particulars of property purchased during the year under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Balance sheet for the year under consideration and submitted that all the properties under consideration are forming part of the books of account of the assessee (under the head fixed assets in the Balance Sheet for the impugned year under consideration). Accordingly, the Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 of the Act. 8. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that on perusal of the agreement of sale itself, it is evident that approximately Rs. 50,00,000/- of payment for purchase of property have been made in cash by the co-purchasers of the property. Accordingly, there was evident for lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, thereby making the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the instant facts, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. Firstly, we observe that the details regarding the property were made available to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, all the aforesaid properties were duly reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and the same were submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for his kind consideration, the PCIT has also not taken into consideration the fact that substantial payment in respect of the above properties were made in the year 2010 and, therefore, it was not analyze ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
