9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inquiries were conducted by the Ld. AO before making assessment and hence the order of Ld. PCIT is erroneous and hence this order u/s. 263 is required to be quashed. 2. In the above cited appeal, in the case of M/s. Starshine Land Developers Pvt. Limited, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were completed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 29.3.2022. The case was reopened by the Ld. AO as the appellant failed to disclose deemed annual letting value under the head "income from house property" attributable to unsold inventories. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has accepted the contention of the appellant that no income was accrued to the company on unsold inventories and hence no addition was made. Subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w before the ITAT. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. But, the appellant filed a detailed paper book which contains correspondence between the appellant and the Ld. AO, notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act, tax audit report, statement of accounts and correspondence made during the proceedings before Ld. PCIT. Case was originally posted for hearing on 22.7.2024, 24.9.2024 and 7.11.2024. Subsequently, when the case was taken up for hearing on 22.7.2024, Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant company and the paper book was filed as mentioned above. Subsequently, when the case was posted for hearing on 24.9.2024 and 7.11.2024, none were present for the appellant. Hence base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inventories as required by Ld. PCIT in his show-cause notice. Ld. AR of the appellant in his paper book, has stated that the Ld. AO knows everything and all the facts are within the knowledge of the Ld. AO and there is no failure on the part of the Ld. AO. In the paper book filed by the appellant, it was stated that the reassessment order was made after making proper inquiries and with due application of mind and hence the order passed by Ld. PCIT is correct and revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was incorrect and liable to be quashed. It was also mentioned that where two views are possible and if the Income Tax Officer has taken one view, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax cannot treat the order as erroneous prejudicial to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n though assessment was reopened for that very specific purpose. The Ld. PCIT has issued a show cause notice with a specific purpose as to leaving tax on unsold inventories of Rs. 54.26 crores when the project was 100% complete. The Bench agrees with the view of Ld. PCIT who relied on the judicial precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Financial and Leasing Company Ltd. and decision of ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Emtci Engineering Ltd., where it was specifically held that the "income from house property" has to be offered for tax purpose on the unsold inventories. We further draw our inference by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gundecha Bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order is passed, which simply accepts what the assessee has said in return and fails to make enquiries which are called for and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner is justified in holding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)] b) The Ld. AO accepted entry in statement of account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry. On these facts, the conclusion that the order of ITO was erroneous was irresistible. - The High Court has rightly held that the jurisdiction exercised by CIT u/s. 263(1) was justified. Malabar Industrial 243/83 (SC). c) Where the Assessing Officer sought information fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar issue was adjudicated in the case of Ansal Housing Ltd. (supra) by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and this is the only High Court decision categorically on this issue. There is no other High Court decision contrary to it and hence two views are not possible as contended by Ld. AR of the appellant. c) In the cases of Gundecha Builders (supra) and Sane and Doshi Enterprises (supra), the jurisdictional Bombay High Court laid down the above principle and hence binding on appellant. d) The coordinate Bench (Mumbai Tribunal) decision of Inorbit Mall (supra) on similar issue is of binding nature. e) The appellant relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Pradip Ramalal Sheth and other decisions, but they are distinguishable on fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
