9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own view unless the view of Ld. AO was shown to the perverse or not in accordance with law. Therefore, revision of the order could not be held to be justified on this score. AO has omitted to consider the addition as made of unaccounted investment u/s 143(3) - The assessee has already preferred a petition u/s 154. Apparently, the demand as raised on account of addition has already been satisfied by the assessee. Therefore, it would suffice on our part to direct Ld. AO to rectify the reassessment order by adopting correct income and by granting applicable deductions / tax credit to the assessee as available to him. Assessee appeal allowed. - Hon ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM And Hon ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, JM For the Appellant : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Ld. AR drew attention to the queries raised by Ld. AO during the course of reassessment proceedings and assessee s replies thereto. The Ld. AR submitted that one of the possible views was taken in the matter and therefore, the revision was not valid. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the revision of the order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. Proceedings before lower authorities 3.1 The assessee being resident individual admitted income of Rs. 9.53 Lacs which was assessed u/s 143(3) on 16-12-2016. Subsequently, the case was reopened on 25-03-2021 on the ground that the assessee purchased certain property along with two others for Rs. 180.06 Lacs on 12-09-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee filed various details and replies with respect to the transaction of the property. The assessee also furnished copy of sale agreement dated 05-04-2013 to submit that the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) would not apply. After verification of the same, the returned income as filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 was accepted by Ld. AO and Ld. AO chose not to make any addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). It could be concluded that Ld. AO was satisfied with the explanations of the assessee, in this regard and one of the possible views was taken on the impugned issue. Considering that fact that the assessee had paid substantial sum pursuant to the sale agreement and on the date of registration of sale deed i.e., when the property was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assesses with due application of mind. Considering the given factual matrix, the said view of Ld. AO could be said to be one of the possible views. In such a scenario, Ld. Pr. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, could not have substituted the opinion of Ld. AO with that of his own view unless the view of Ld. AO was shown to the perverse or not in accordance with law. Therefore, revision of the order could not be held to be justified on this score. 5. Another issue raised in the revisionary order is that Ld. AO has omitted to consider the addition of Rs. 4.27 Lacs as made on account of unaccounted investment u/s 143(3) in assessment order dated 16-12- 2016. In this regard, the assessee has already preferred a petition u/s 154 on 09-01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
