TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT') has erred in issuing notice dated 10th February, 2012 under the provisions of section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the assessment year 2007-08, without mentioning any reason for issuance of the same and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction under the provisions of section 263 of the Act by issuing notice dated 10th February, 2012 for the assessment year 2007-08, based on audit objections raised by the revenue audit department, without application of his mind. 3. That on the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in passing the order under the provisions of section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08, thereby setting aside the order passed by the AO under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act on the alleged ground that no verification/enquiry was made by the AO when due verification/enquiry was made by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding and further, when a detailed reply substantiating the stand taken in the assessment order was given by the AO in pursuance of the audit query raised the revenue audit department immediately after the assessment proceedings. 2. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of material facts. On 10th Febru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12/201 1-12/9424 dated 10th February, 2012 issued by your kind self under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') fixing the date of hearing on 21st February, 2012 and further, to the discussion we had with your kindself on that date. As no reasons for initiating the above proceedings on the company were mentioned in the aforementioned notice dated 10th February, 2012 issued by your kindself, it was humbly requested during the course of the hearing to state the same so that we can file a detailed written submission before your kindself to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well .as not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Your kindself mentioned that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e computation of capital gains, the assessee claimed the cost of acquisition of the land and building separately. No enquiry was made into this aspect of the case. It is notable that, in the final accounts for AY 2005-06, composite value for land & building was shown as asset. It is also a fact that the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee was accepted by the A.O. without any verification of the Fare Market Value on the relevant date. It also appears that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,16,66,995/- was allowed imperfectly. Further, in the computation of tax, no surcharge and education cess was levied. Hence, proceedings u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act was initiated. The A.R. of the assessee-company was heard in the matte....