9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm filed return of income of relevant AY 2018-19 which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.06.2021. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attracts revisionary-jurisdiction u/s 263. Accordingly, the PCIT issued show-cause notice dated 16.01.2024 and finally passed revision order dated 26.03.2024. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has come in this appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 56(2)(vii) to mean only a 'capital asset'. It is also clarified by CBDT in Para No. 13.4 of Circular No. 01/2011 dated 06.04.2011 [F.No. 142/1/2011-SO(TPL)] and also judicially decided so by ITAT, Jaipur in Satendra Kaushik, ITA No. 392/JP/2019 order dated 23.04.2019; ITAT, Pune in Mubarak Gafur Korabu Vs. ITO (2019) 55 CCH 0467; ITAT, Jaipur in Yogesh Maheshwari Vs. DCIT, 125 Taxmann.com 273; ITAT, Jaipur in Prem Chand Jain Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 98/JP/2019 order dated 08.06.2020, that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) [or corresponding erstwhile provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)] is not applicable where the property purchased by assessee is not a 'capital asset' or it is a part of 'stockin- trade' of assessee. (b) That the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. PCIT, ITA No. 132 to 135/Ind/2021 order dated 10.11.2022; CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (2019) 418 Taxmman.com 723 (Allahabad); Smt. Renuka Phillip Vs. ITO (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 119 (Madras); RNR Devcon Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 459/Ind/2018. 5. With above submissions, Ld. AR submitted that there is no error in the assessment-order of AO. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed that the revision-order passed by PCIT is not sustainable and must be quashed and the AO's assessment-order must be restored. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue very strongly raised following contentions to oppose the submissions of Ld. AR: (a) The AO himself committed a mistake by applying section 56(2)(x)(b) to another property but not to the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Ld. AR that the issue of taxability done by AO u/s 56(2)(x)(b) qua 'another property' is pending before CIT(A) and therefore the PCIT is barred from invoking revisionary action in terms of Explanation 1(c) to section 263 is concerned, we re-produce below the said Explanation 1(c) for an immediate reference, which reads as under: "(c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
