9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re as under: - 1. The order u/s 263 is in opposition to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of Sec 263 for the issues mentioned in his order. 3. The conclusion of PCIT that no enquiry was conducted by AO during re-assessment is opposed facts. In fact the re-assessment was for the purpose of bringing into tax the alleged escapement of income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. The Ld. PCIT erred in not perusing the agreement for sale that was furnished to him along with reply to show cause notice u/s 263. In fact such sale agreement was part of records furnished during re-assessment proceedings. 5. PCIT cannot question the sufficiency of enquiry to be made by AO at the time of assessment/ re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other co-owners. The assessee was required to file his explanations for the same. 3.2 The assessee objected to the reopening on the ground that the property was purchased and registered on 12-09-2013. The property was received by the assessee on that date itself. Subsequently, the Government of Tamilnadu revised value of the property on 07-02-2014 and the additional stamp duty was collected on 02-06-2014. The property was not received on any of these dates. So, the requisite ingredients to invoke the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) were absent. The assessee also pointed out that it paid substantial sum of Rs. 35 Lacs on 05-04-2013, Rs. 40 Lacs on 09-04-2013 and Rs. 75 Lacs on 18-05- 2013 which was supported by sale agreement and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of Rs. 4.27 Lacs as made on account of unaccounted investment u/s 143(3) in assessment order dated 16-12-2016. Though the assessee opposed the revision, Ld. Pr. CIT, in para-10, alleged that no agreement was entered into by the transacting parties. The claim that Ld. AO obtained satisfaction on the basis of document could not be accepted and therefore, Ld. AO was directed to re-do the assessment and examine the issues as flagged in the revisionary order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our Adjudication 4. As noted by us in preceding paras 3.2 and 3.3, the assessee's case was specifically reopened to examine the application of provisions of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b). The assessee's objection to reopening were specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
