9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal, unlawful and are totally contrary to provisions of 1961 Act and passed in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the 1961 Act as underlying assessment order passed u/s 143(3) do not qualify the prerequisite of being "erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue"; ii) That in admitted and undisputed facts of the case, impugned revision order passed u/s 263 of 1961 Act by PCIT 4 DELHI is founded on non existing, vague and invalid show cause notice (scn)(s) issued u/s 263 on totally wrong assumption and presumption vis a vis aspect of inquiry during assessment on cost of improvement is concerned; iii) That in admitted and undisputed facts of the case, impugned revision order passed u/s 263 of 1961 Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Indexed cost of improvement 23,47,321 divided 1024 multiplied by 1125 25,78,844 2nd cost of improvement 72,86,367/- Total indexed cost of acquisition and improvement 1,58,91,859/- 1,58,91,859/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 66,08,141/- 4. Further, Learned PCIT observed that the assessing officer has not made any enquiry about the indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 60,26,648 (cost of Rs. 25,71,370/-). No supporting evidence of cost of improvement and cost of acquisition obtained or verified. In view of the above facts learned PCIT observed that the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of sale deed, the AO has not followed the provisions of Section 50C that the value of stamp as per stamp valuation officer of property was Rs. 3.58 crores whereas assessee has declared stamp duty of Rs. 2.25 crores and declared the capital gain accordingly. With the above observations learned PCIT held the assessment was passed u/s 143 of the Act for the year 2017-18 was both erroneous and prejudicial, accordingly directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard before completing the assessment. 5. Aggrieved with the above order assessee has filed present appeal before us. At the time of hearing learned AR brought to our notice page 2 of the revision ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nilkanth Tech Park Private Limited. 7. On the other hand Learned DR submitted that assessing officer has passed cryptic order and not discussed the issues whether he has verified the information collected from assessee or not. He vehemently supported the findings of learned PCIT and relied on them. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that no doubt the AO has passed cryptic and non-speaking order. However, the AO has enquired the relevant information relating to indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement during the assessment proceedings. The issues raised by learned PCIT in show case notice issued u/s 263 of the Act was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d "miscellaneous expenses" aggregating to Rs. 2.94 crores. The respondent-assessee had responded to the same and on consideration of response of the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer held that of an amount of Rs. 17.98 lakhs incurred on account of repairs and maintenance out of Rs. 2.94 crores is capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. The fact that the assessment order itself does not contain any discussion with regard to the balance amount of expenditure of Rs. 1.76 crores, i.e. Rs. 2.94 crores less Rs. 17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate nonapplication of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
