9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T s revision directions have duly discussed all the relevant facts before reaching to an independent conclusion that the foregoing regular assessment was an erroneous one causing prejudicial to interest of the Revenue. Rejected accordingly. Once the AO had made it clear that the matter shall be examined afresh in section 154 proceedings once the DVO submits his report, the PCIT has erred in law on facts in assuming his section 263 revision jurisdiction - We are of the considered view that the assessee s instant third substantive argument deserves to be declined only as an issue which is subject matter of valuation to be followed by the objection thereto, would hardly be treated as an apparent mistake so as to attract section 154 rectification as per T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ] Rejected accordingly. PCIT (Central), Nagpur did not have jurisdiction in section 263 revision proceedings once the Assessing Officer had framed his assessment at Nashik - We find that the assessee has failed to bring any material in the case file indicating the PCIT (Central), Nagpur lacking jurisdiction as per provisions of the Income Tax Act. We make it clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this act available at the time of examination by the principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; Further the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathware Packing Products Camphor Works (1998) 96 Taxmann 1, vide order dated 02-12-1997 has held that Record, connotation of Word record used in section 263(1) would mean record as it stands at the time of examination by commissioner and not as it stands at the time of order passed by Assessing Officer and, as such, Commissioner would be justified in invoking section 263 on the basis of valuation report submitted by DVO subsequent to assessment order. Further in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.M. Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. [(1991) 190 404], Calcutta High Court itself interpreted the word record . In that case the assessment was completed on February 1, 1983. The Income Tax Officer before he completed the assessment had referred the matter of plant and machinery and electrical installation to the Valuation Officer (P M). His report was not received by the Income Tax Officer when the assessment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is A.Y.2018-19 and as per the valuation of building shown by the assessee in his return of income as on 31-03-2018 is Rs. 2,12,73,898/- and the DVO has determined the valuation on that date at Rs. 3,73,14,000/-, whereas the assessee in his submission is referring to the valuation of the building as on 31-03-2020 at Rs. 4,07,98,516. The value of the building as on 31-03-2020 is not relevant for the assessment year under consideration. (c) The decision of the Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gokuldas Exports 2011- 333-ITR-214 and Hon Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Berry Plastics (P.) Ltd. [[2013] 35 taxmann.com 296 (Gujarat)] relied upon by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts of the cases relied upon are different from the fact of the present case in as much as the cases relied upon by the assessee do not deal with the situation where the valuation to the DVO was referred during the course of the assessment proceedings and the report of the DVO is received after the completion of the assessment. (d) The assess in his submission has further stated that In the present case, value shown in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order. As such the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 9. Considering the specific facts as discussed above and also keeping in view the provisions of Explanation 1(b) to section 263 of the Act and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathware Packing Products Camphor Works (1998) 96 Taxmann 1, I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 30-09-2021, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the order is set aside for framing fresh assessment. The A.O is directed to consider the specific issues as discussed above and make necessary enquiries to ascertain the income of the assessee and pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The assessee; an individual, was subjected to section 133A survey action at his business premises (hospital) on 27.02.2018. The same followed his e-return u/s 139(1) dated 17.10.2018 stating income of Rs. 24,92,830/-. The Assessing Officer took up scruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 43.2 that there is no time limit for furnishing of the report by the valuation officer under the above statutory provision. We further deem it appropriate to conclude that once the legislature has not even included the time spent between the date of reference and submission of DVO report in the time limit prescribed for framing of an assessment, such a mutuality contradictory interpretation of section 142A(6) is not sustainable in law. We accordingly reject the assessee s first and foremost substantive argument. Learned counsel could hardly dispute that the foregoing judicial precedents do not apply in very terms. 7. Learned counsel next takes us the PCIT s detailed discussion in para 4 that he had not applied his mind once having acted as per the Assessing Officer proposal made for section 263 revision jurisdiction. We note that the assessee s instant second substantive argument also deserves to be rejected as the learned PCIT s revision directions have duly discussed all the relevant facts before reaching to an independent conclusion that the foregoing regular assessment was an erroneous one causing prejudicial to interest of the Revenue. Rejected accordingly. 8. Learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
