TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad, exercising powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The Commissioner in the order impugned before the Hon'ble Tribunal, dealt with the issue of taxability of Rs. 5,01,60,000 in respect of which the appellant had entered into Agreement of Sale dt.02.11.2005 with M/s. Leo Edibles and Fats Limited and received advance amount of Rs. 36,55,000/-.The advance was towards agreement to sell land to the extent Ac 22.32 Gts for a total consideration of Rs. 5,01,60,000/-. The Appellant has not offered the above amount of Rs. 5,01,60,000 as the Agreement to sell was conditional upon securing certain permissions, which eventually were not secured, and the Agreement to se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be settled, if any. The Sale Agreement cited supra is not yet cancelled and it is still in force. It is valid and enforceable by law. If there is any dispute it could be settled mutually or before a court of law. It is also be noted that the Sale Agreement was entered 2.11.2005. By 31st March, 2006 i.e., during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2006- 07 nothing has been brought on record to show that the Sale Agreement has become invalid or cancelled or advance money has been refunded by the assessee to the purchaser. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the direction given by the CIT and pass consequential order in accordance with law, if it is not already passed. 4. It has been submitted in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was prayed by the petitioner that the Tribunal may rectify the apparent error in paragraph 31 of its order dated 18.05.2012 passed by it in ITA No.1080/Hyd/2011 for A.Y 2006-07 which has the effect of enhancing the assessment, by expunging the entire findings and observations contained in Paragraph 31 of its order and limiting its order to the directions contained in the order of the ld CIT -IV Hyderabad (which the Tribunal did in last sentence of Para 30 of its order) and pass such other order(s) in the interest of justice. 7. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal and perused the records. We find merit in the petition filed in this regard. We note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initiated u/s 263. The CIT is completely. unjustified in directing the AO to re-do the assessment just to make further roaming and fishing enquiries, when there is not even an iota of evidence available on record to support the suspicion that the advance for sale of land amounting to Rs. 5.01 crores received by the assessee is a concluded sale assessable to tax. 4. The ld CIT ought to have noted that an order u/s 263 cannot direct the AO to carry out enquiries and assessment in any particular manner, interfering with the quasi judicial authority of the AO. 5. The ld CIT ought to have noted that in the existence of error and prejudice to the revenue are sine qua non (which have not been established in this case). In such circumstances....