9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presented by the difference in the value assessable for levy of stamp duty (Rs.1,74.96,000/-) and the consideration paid (Rs. 38,96,000/-) in the purchase of immovable property. The order of the Pr. CIT being erroneous in law and in facts is prayed to be cancelled revoked. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 13.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing to revise the assessment order to verify and consider the taxation of income represented by the amount of Rs. 69,98,400/- paid as premium to the District Collector as undisclosed investment. The order of the Pr. CIT being erroneous in law and in facts is prayed to be cancelled/ revoked. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT has further erred in law and in facts in completely disregarding the submission of the appellant that the impugned assessment order sought to be revised u/s. 263 is passed u/s. 153 A r.w.s. 143(3) having a scope of assessment of undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating documents / material. In absence of any material / document in relation to the claim of expenses directed to be re-v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the ld.Pr.CIT further reveals that the assessee stated to the ld.Pr.CIT that the assessment order was not erroneous for the reason that the scope of an assessment framed under section 153A of the Act for the impugned year was limited, confined to incriminating material found during the search, and since the issue relating to the investment in the property noted by the ld.Pr.CIT did not arise from any material found during the search, the AO could not have considered or made any inquiry with respect to this matter, while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act. That therefore, there was no error in the order of the AO for not making any inquiry on the issue of investment made in the agriculture land of the assessee during the impugned year. The assessee also contended that the ld.Pr.CIT was seeking to invoke provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by pointing out that the stamp duty value/ fair value of the property purchased by the assessee was far more than the actual consideration paid by the assessee, and the difference ought to have been added in the hands of the assessee. He contended before the ld.Pr.CIT that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-inquiry by the AO on the issue of investment made by the assessee in agricultural land during the year tantamounted to error causing prejudice to the Revenue, and accordingly, he cancelled the assessment order passed, directing the AO to pass assessment order de novo in accordance with law after taking into consideration the issue discussed by him. 7. Before us the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the ld.Pr.CIT had grossly erred in rejecting the assessee's arguments that the assessment framed by the AO in the impugned year under section 153A of the Act could have been made only on the basis of incriminating material found during search on the assessee since the assessment was unabated. In this regard, he pointed out that the interpretation of the provisions of section 153A of the Act by the ld.Pr.CIT that the assessment for all six years prior to the year in which search was conducted were open and not restricted in any manner to incriminating material found during search, stood rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order passed in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd., (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). He pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly held in the said decision that it is only the incriminating material found during the search, which is to be considered while framing the assessment for the six years prior to the year in which the search was conducted and the assessment of which are unabated. He contended that there is no dispute about the fact that the information in the possession of the AO was not gathered during the search conducted on the assessee. Therefore, going by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd.(supra) the said information could not be treated as incriminating material at all for framing the assessment for the impugned year under section 153A of the Act. The ld.DR was unable to controvert the factual/legal contentions of the assessee. However, he relied on the order of the ld.Pr.CIT. 9. Having heard contentions of both the parties, we are in agreement with the ld.counsel for the assessee that the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the ld.Pr.CIT is not sustainable in law for the reason that clearly there is no error in the order of the AO, which has been passed in accordance with law interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
