Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roperty . In fact, the AO is totally silent about impugned property in assessment-order. When it is so, we are in immediate agreement with DR for revenue that the order passed by AO is certainly erroneous for non-consideration of impugned property for taxation u/s 56(2)(x)(b) when there is no difference in two transactions. Hence, the PCIT is very much justified in invoking revisionary action to assessee s case. Claim of 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 - Explanation 1(c) empowers the PCIT to take up revisionary action to such matter as had not been considered a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 for assessee carried us to revision-order and demonstrated that there is one single issue for which the PCIT undertook revision. The PCIT has noted that the assessee had purchased an immovable property from Shri Arun Sabharwal and Smt. Anita Sabharwal at Khasra No. 452/2 comprising 0.110 hectare situated at Village Hinotiya Alam, RI Circle, Ratibad, Tehsil Huzur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ari 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 assessee filed tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and in Column No. 29B of Form 3CD, against the question asking for income chargeable u/s 56(2)(x), the auditors have reported No such income was noted during the audit. The section 56(2)(x) includes capital asset and it is not applicable to business stock-in-trade. . The AO has considered the auditors report while framing asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R 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 impugned property. This is a serious error in assessment-order rightly identified by PCIT. (b) The issue pending before CIT(A) is concerning another property purchased by assessee and not the impugned property with which we are concerned. Therefore, the Ld. AR s claim that the revisionary jurisdiction of PCIT is barred is not valid. The case-laws relied by Ld. AR are not helpful to assessee. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng 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 considered and decided in such appeal. Thus, the Explanation 1(c) empowers the PCIT to take up revisionary action to such matter as had not been considered and decided in appeal . Undisputably, the appeal filed by assessee before CIT(A) is qua the addition made by AO in relation to another property and the matter of impugned property is not before CIT(A). Therefore, the Explanation 1(c) very much empowers the PCIT to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates