AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the purpose of narration of facts, we have taken pleadings from the record of Income Tax Appeal No. 164 of 2009. 3. These appeals under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act, 1961) have arisen from judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal') in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 224(Luc)/2009 and 223(Luc)/2009 respectively, relating to Assessment Year(hereinafter referred to as ''A.Y.') 2004-05. 4. It was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: "I. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in quashing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, which has been allowed vide order dated 20.06.2009 (impugned in this appeal). Tribunal has set aside order passed by C.I.T. under Section 263 of Act, 1961. 8. Now question is whether Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by C.I.T. under Section 263 or not. 9. C.I.T. can exercise its power of revision under Section 263 only if it finds, (i) that the order passed by A.O. is erroneous; (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. C.I.T. issued notice dated 20.03.2009 initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 and stated therein that Assessee had sold a piece of land to M/s. Omaxe Properties Ltd. during relevant A.Y. It has shown sale consideration at Rs. 60,00,000/- for the purpose of computing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as the ''D.V.O.') for valuation under Section 50C(2) of Act, 1961 and after receiving report, issued notice to Assessee also. It is only thereafter, valuation disclosed by Assessee was accepted. Assessee, thus contended that A.O. passed order with deep and indepth inquiry. He submitted that A.O. has neither passed erroneous order nor it is prejudicial to Revenue, therefore, Section 263 of Act, 1961 would not be attracted. 13. C.I.T. found that in the order passed by A.O., all the details and factum regarding valuation of D.V.O. were not mentioned. The order is cryptic and stereotyped. Thus, it cannot be said that A.O. made detailed inquiry in the claim of capital loss made by Assessee. C.I.T. also held that A.O. did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt to the recital in the sale deed that relevant Khasra is within limits of Nagar Nigam. He said that D.V.O. failed to consider this aspect but A.O. ought to have applied its mind which he has failed, therefore, power was rightly exercised by C.I.T. 16. Learned counsel for Assessee contended that sale deed which has been placed before this Court during the course of arguments, cannot be taken into consideration since it was not material available before A.O. or C.I.T. 17. From the order of Tribunal, we find that various letters and notices sent by A.O. and D.V.O. have been quoted in extentio. It shows that D.V.O. in his report remarked that valuation unit of department has no provision to value agricultural land as per statutory pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions 45 to 55A of Act, 1961 will apply. 21. D.V.O. instead of considering this aspect, wrote a letter dated 29.12.2006 to Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Lucknow stating that Assessee himself has admitted fair market value of land at Rs. 60,00 lacs, while D.V.O. has estimated at Rs. 59.30 lacs. Being agricultural land there was no further necessity for determination of market value of land again. Thereafter, D.V.O. sent letter dated 20.02.2007 addressed to Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow, that A.O., if wants to stay on its own interpretation of law he can proceed. The tone of letter is aveiled threat to A.O. 22. It is true that A.O. made reference to D.V.O. for valuation of land in dispute under Section 50C(2) of ....