9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture and source of the investment which was not recorded in his books of account. As held in case of Malabar Industries Co [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Hence, the PCIT has rightly involved provisions of section 263 of the Act. Whether directions of PCIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act are in order? - We find that there is confirmation and ledger account from the builder, M/s N. Rose Developers Pvt. Ltd., who has accepted payments from the appellant and also signed the documents. The said documents are the basis for the re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act as well as revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. It is also a fact that in the payment receipts, different flats numbers are mentioned. It is also submitted that payments for purchase of flat were made from 09.11.2011 to 15.02.2020. Hence, all investments were not made in the current assessment year. Therefore, the addition of the total amount cannot be made in the subject assessment year. We also find that the facts as stated in different stages are contrary to each other, which require further clarification and verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act came to the knowledge of Shri Kunal Pitalia on 06.06.2024, when the appellant inquired about the result of revision proceedings by the PCIT for which reply was filed in March,2024. When he visited ITBA portal, it was found that the revision order was passed by the PCIT on 15.03.2024. Thereafter, he immediately informed Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, who took immediate action and filed appeal before ITAT, Surat on 10.06.2024. The appellant submitted that delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate. Therefore, he requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted that assessee has failed to explain sufficient cause for the delay; hence, delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that there is short delay of 27 days. We note that assessee was not negligent but due to lack of advice of the earlier tax consultant, the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit would constitute sufficient cause for delay in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase of the flat was on 09.11.2011 and thereafter, all payments were made through cheques in instalments. No payment was made in AY.2017-18. It was also submitted that the issue was examined by the AO during reassessment proceedings and AO has made addition of the whole value of SVA of Rs. 48,11,389/-. The appellant has filed appeal before CIT(A) on 22.04.2022 which is pending till date. Since the CIT(A) is having concurrent jurisdiction and is also having power of enhancement in case there is mistake in the order of AO, the issue cannot be examined by PCIT within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. 8. The PCIT was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He observed that it is settled law that the order passed by the AO without conducting proper enquiry is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In the present case, AO failed to treat the investment made in the property of Rs. 33,18,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The difference of Rs. 14,93,939/- (Rs.48,11,939 Rs. 33,18,000) only was required to be added u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Such omission on part of AO has resulted into an erroneous order which was also prejudicial to the interests of reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various details from the assessee and made addition of the entire amount of Rs. 48,11,393/-, being the value as per SVA due to non-compliance of assessee in the re-assessment proceedings. In the revision proceedings, the PCIT has bifurcated the said sum into two parts and observed that the difference between the value as per the registered deed and that as per SVA amounting to Rs. 14,93,393/- should have been added u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and the amount as per the sale deed of Rs. 33,18,000/- should have been added u/s 69 of the Act. This is so because assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidences. We find that the action of the PCIT is in accordance with clear statutory provisions of the Act. Clause (x) of Section 56(2) expands the scope of income from other sources w.e.f. AY.2017-18 and subsequent year to provide that receipt of the sum of money or property by any person without consideration or for inadequate consideration in excess of Rs. 50,000/- shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of recipient under the head Income from other sources . Hence, AO should have taxed Rs. 14,93,393/- and not the entire Stamp Duty Value (SVA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
