2024 (9) TMI 451 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's appeal dismissed as PCIT correctly invoked section 263 powers for ignoring identical property transaction below stamp duty valuation

D.K. Constructions Versus PCIT (Central), Bhopal

ITAT Indore upheld PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding application of section 56(2)(x)(b) to immovable property purchase. Assessee purchased two ... Revision u/s 263 - Application of section 56(2)(x)(b) to the purchase of an immovable property - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has purchased two different properties i.e. ‘impugned property’ and ‘another property’ as referred and detailed by us in foregoing para. Both properties were held by assessee as ‘stock-in-trade’ and not ‘capital assets’ and both properties were purchased for a consideration less than the stamps authority valuation. However, while completing assessment, the AO has made addition u/s 56(2)(x)(b) for ‘another property’ but not for ‘impugned property’. In fact, the AO is totally silent about ‘impugned property’ in assessment-order. When it is so, we are in immediate agreement with DR for revenue that the order passed by AO is certainly erroneous for non-consideration of ‘impugned property’ for taxation u/s 56(2)(x)(b) when there is no difference in two transactions. Hence, the PCIT is very much justified in invoking revisionary action to assessee’s case. Claim of AR that the issue of taxability done by AO u/s 56(2)(x)(b) qua ‘another property’ is pending before CIT(A) and therefore the PCIT is barred from invoking revisionary action in terms of Explanation 1(c) to section 263 -Explanation 1(c) empowers the PCIT to take up revisionary action to ‘such matter as had not been considered and decided in appeal’. Undisputably, the appeal filed by assessee before CIT(A) is qua the addition made by AO in relation to ‘another property’ and the matter of ‘impugned property’ is not before CIT(A). Therefore, the Explanation 1(c) very much empowers the PCIT to take up the issue of ‘impugned property’ for revision. Hence, we do not find any merit in the claim raised by Ld. AR. The above discussion brings us to conclude that the order passed by PCIT is very much in accordance with the provision of section 263. We therefore uphold the same. The assessee fails in this appeal. Issues:1. Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Application of section 56(2)(x)(b) to the purchase of an immovable property.3. Distinction between 'capital asset' and 'stock-in-trade' for taxability under section 56(2)(x)(b).4. Interpretation of Explanation 1(c) to section 263 regarding revisionary powers.Analysis:Issue 1: Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The Appellate Tribunal ITAT INDORE addressed the appeal arising from a revision-order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore-1 under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revision was based on the assessment-order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which was deemed prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal reviewed the revisionary action and analyzed the grounds raised in the appeal memo to determine the validity of the revision-order.Issue 2: Application of section 56(2)(x)(b) to the purchase of an immovable property.The main issue revolved around the taxability of a property purchased by the assessee, where the consideration paid was less than the valuation determined by the stamps authority. The Principal Commissioner invoked section 263, citing the shortfall in consideration as attracting tax liability under section 56(2)(x)(b). The Appellate Tribunal examined the application of this provision and the failure of the AO to address this issue in the assessment-order, leading to the conclusion that the AO's omission rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.Issue 3: Distinction between 'capital asset' and 'stock-in-trade' for taxability under section 56(2)(x)(b).The Tribunal considered the argument raised by the assessee that the property in question was part of its stock-in-trade and not a capital asset, thereby contending that section 56(2)(x)(b) did not apply. The assessee relied on legal interpretations and circulars to support this claim. However, the Tribunal upheld the revision-order, emphasizing that both the impugned property and another property were treated as stock-in-trade, and the AO's failure to tax the former under section 56(2)(x)(b) was a clear error.Issue 4: Interpretation of Explanation 1(c) to section 263 regarding revisionary powers.The Tribunal analyzed Explanation 1(c) to section 263, which empowers the Principal Commissioner to revise matters not considered in an appeal. It clarified that the pending appeal related to a different property and did not bar the Principal Commissioner from revising the assessment concerning the impugned property. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the revisionary jurisdiction was restricted due to the pending appeal, citing the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the revision-order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263, finding it in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal advised the assessee to raise its legal claim regarding the nature of the property before the Assessing Officer during further proceedings.